Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. Independent sector treatment centres are not privatisation by stealth or any other means. Patients are not forced to go to ISTCs and, indeed, we are extending patient choice. From 1 July, patients needing orthopaedic treatment will have a free choice of more than 200 hospital and treatment centres all around the country. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support that and also the support the fact that more than nine out of 10 patients said that their NHS hospital treatment was either good, very good or excellent. We should be proud of that, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not.

Caroline Flint: I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point, but the most recent figures—those for 2004-05—show that the number of GPs participating in shared care schemes for providing treatment to drug users has increased in the last10 years from 20 per cent. to 32 per cent. Clearly we need to do more, but that is a good sign. We must embed the culture of understanding drug treatment in the earliest days of training. That is why providing the guidance to the medical colleges on 30 April was an investment in the future. I hope that more GPs will see this as one of the health roles that they should play in their communities.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend will be aware that proper financial management has ensured that no PCT in the north-west will be top sliced this year to subsidise poor management inother areas. He will know too that many north-west PCTs receive less than the formula funding says they should. How is it that they can stay within budget, while others receiving more than their formula funding overspend?

David Taylor: What recent representations she has received on the performance of the Medical Training Application Service.

Peter Bottomley: Most of the House will welcome the service that James Johnson has given over recent years, to the BMA and in other ways. My question to the Secretary of State has to do with MTAS. Does the Department recognise that examination candidates who want to check whether their marks have been added together correctly—or whether their papers have been marked at all—should get an appropriate response before the end of round 2?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the enormous commitment of junior doctors, and other health care professionals, to the NHS. In relation to recruitment to medical training, I stress that the interviews in round one, which include an interview for every applicant, are nearly complete and, subject of course to the outcome of the judicial review, job offers will start to be made as soon as the result of the judicial review is known. By sorting out the very real problems and distress that have arisen this year, we will indeed be able to reassure junior doctors in particular about how much we value them and to ensure that they have a good future in the NHS.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that at this point we should focus on the solutions, rather than simply restating the problem. As I have indicated, job offers for round one will be made, subject to the outcome of the judicial review and as soon as we know that court judgment. Detailed information on that process is going out to applicants very shortly. Once we have the court judgment from the judicial review, we will be able to give applicants further details of how round two—the next round of recruitment—will be organised and the support that will be available to applicants throughout that process and beyond, as we look to the end of that further round of recruitment.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many additional training posts the review group have asked the Department of Health to provide for? This is the fifth time in over two months that I have asked the Secretary of State to make a commitment to provide for additional training posts and she still has not done so.

Patricia Hewitt: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we have the outcome of the judicial review. I will then announce how many additional training posts will be made available for round two and other details of round two.

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said in the House before, Modernising Medical Careers has been a joint effort by the Department of Health, Ministers, the royal colleges, the British Medical Association, the work force deaneries and many others, all of whom have been involved in addressing the problems that were highlighted many years ago by the BMA itself when it rightly called for a new system of training to replace the thoroughly unsatisfactory old system whereby senior house offices became known as the lost tribe because they simply did not have the support that was needed. We know perfectly well that the implementation of the application and recruitment system for this year has not worked properly. We have had a lot of problems with it—we hardly need to say that in this Chamber. We are sorting that out and I take responsibility for doing so.

Tim Loughton: Why does the Minister think that the recent evaluation of the school fruit and vegetable programme by the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it had no lasting impact on what children were eating, that only 27 per cent. of children achieved the five-a-day target, and that only a third of children were aware of what that target was—no doubt some thought that it referred to cigarettes? In any case, two thirds of the fruit and veg in the programme comes from overseas and half contains more than one type of possibly harmful pesticide. Some £77 million later, is this another costly, headline-grabbing, ill-thought Government initiative that has gone pear shaped?

Patricia Hewitt: The strongest safeguard is the professionalism of NHS staff themselves, but the modernisation of NHS IT also provides the opportunity to deploy state-of-the-art security safeguards, particularly for confidential patient information. In the rare cases where NHS staff do breach patient confidentiality, they are subject both to disciplinary measures and to the legal penalties provided under the Data Protection Act 1998; professional staff also risk losing their licence to practice.

Ruth Kelly: With permission,Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government's proposals for the implementation of home information packs. It was the Government's intention to implement home information packs, including energy performance certificates, on 1 June. In debate last week, reference was made to the judicial review requested by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That judicial review focused on energy performance certificates, not home information packs. On Wednesday, the judge issued an interim order, which was received by my Department on Thursday. That order would have effectively prevented the introduction of energy performance certificates on1 June, while the case was being considered.
	The Government believe that introducing home information packs without energy performance certificates would be neither practical nor acceptable. It is important to introduce energy performance certificates and home information packs at the same time, because cutting carbon emissions should go hand in hand with market transformation. We have been in detailed discussion with the RICS to prevent lengthy legal delays. Both the Government and the RICS are committed to the swift and smooth introduction of home information packs and energy performance certificates. I am pleased that we have reached a pragmatic way forward— [Interruption]—that gives certainty and allows us to get on with implementation.

Ruth Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	As a result, we propose to withdraw the home information pack regulations to clear the way for successful implementation of revised arrangements.
	Although the issue of the judicial review is now resolved, long-running uncertainty has already had an impact on the numbers of energy assessors. For implementation on 1 June, we would need at least 2,000 assessors to be accredited, with over 2,500 by the end of the month. Today I am updating the House with the latest figures. There are over 2,500 people currently in training. A further 3,200 have already passed their home inspector or domestic energy assessor exams. Of those, 1,500 have been accredited or have applied for accreditation, but only 520 have been fully accredited. These figures show that the number of assessors is unlikely to meet our needs for 1 June implementation. Equally, they show that in the long term there will clearly be enough assessors to meet demand.
	The Government remain convinced of the importance of home information packs and energy performance certificates. Home information packs will cut costs and delays in buying homes. Energy performance certificates will help to reduce energy bills and cut carbon emissions from our homes, which, as they make up 27 per cent. of our national carbon emissions, could make a big difference in our effort to tackle climate change. The measures in the energy performance certificates will cut carbon emissions by nearly 1 million tonnes every year.
	I have always said that the right test of the legislation should be how it brings benefits for consumers and how it protects the environment. Today, therefore, I am setting out a practical way forward. I propose to change the start date for home information packs to 1 August, and intend to phase their introduction. From 1 August home information packs, including energy performance certificates, will be required for the sale of four-bedroom properties and larger—the properties where there is the greatest potential to make energy efficiency savings. This will ensure work for energy assessors who have already been trained and accredited. We will extend to smaller properties as rapidly as possible, as sufficient energy assessors become ready to work. As we see the number of accredited assessors rise, so more properties will be included in the system.
	We are also introducing a number of transitional measures. First, until the end of the year, we propose to allow people to market their properties as soon as they have commissioned a pack, rather than make them wait until they have received it, in order to avoid unnecessary delays when the systems come in. Secondly, to allow energy performance certificates to be implemented at the earliest opportunity, we will make amendments to allow energy performance certificates to be up to12 months old when the property is put up for sale, extending the current three-month age limit.
	Thirdly, we are inviting councils and registered social landlords to work with us to introduce energy performance certificates on a voluntary basis in social housing—for example, at the time of stock transfers. This will also provide work for energy assessors at an early opportunity. I will shortly introduce revised regulations to implement the changes that I have outlined.
	Towards the end of the year we will assess the implementation of home information packs and consider what further steps might be needed to maximise the reduction in carbon emissions and drive forward the reform of home buying and selling. This assessment will be informed by the operation of the market from 1 August, by the results of the area trials, and by a further consultation on the next steps in implementing home information packs and energy performance certificates, which we will begin in the summer.
	The approach that I have set out gives clarity to everyone about the next steps. It delivers home information packs and energy performance certificates, removes uncertainty for energy assessors and others, and ensures a smooth transition for the people buying and selling their property. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity to make real progress towards cutting carbon emissions from our homes.

Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for her grace and courage in coming to the House to make the statement today. It cannot have been easy announcing a retreat on a policy that she had no part in implementing originally. It is big of her to take the flak.
	I also thank the Secretary of State for allowing me sight of her announcement, which I received just25 minutes ago—clearly this is a day for doing everything at the last minute.
	May I ask why, after being warned more than a year ago that they were comprehensively mishandling this issue, Ministers have seen fit to retreat only now with eight days to go before home information packs were due to be implemented? Why did Ministers not take the opportunity that we offered last week to think again? Was it stubborn vanity or sheer incompetence? The Secretary of State may argue that this humiliating climbdown was precipitated by the judgment issued in the High Court today, but that prompts the question that goes to the heart of the matter: why did Ministers find themselves in court in the first place? Why did they press ahead with a scheme that everyone who knows anything about the housing market told them was flawed at the heart?
	Those warnings, unlike this climbdown, did not come at the eleventh hour. In this House at this Dispatch Box a year ago, we told the Government that their scheme was flawed. The Government told us that we were scaremongering, but 11 months ago they were compelled to execute the first in a truly embarrassing series of U-turns by dropping the mandatory home condition report, which was the keystone of the original home information pack, just hours after the Minister for Housing and Planning had defended it in this House. However, they were still determined to press ahead after that U-turn. Why did they not take the opportunity to work with us and others to put the stability of the housing market first? Why did Ministers decide to ignore the growing chorus of concern, shut out expert advice and carry on regardless?
	On 21 February, all the key stakeholders who were originally invited to help the Government set up the scheme issued a warning letter to the Minister for Housing and Planning asking for an emergency meeting to address fundamental concerns with the scheme. They were not granted the meeting for which they asked: why? In desperation, the same group wrote to the Secretary of State on 2 March asking for a collective emergency meeting. Again, they were snubbed and no collective meeting was granted: why? What explains that refusal to listen to the experts, who were once charged with setting up the policy and whose involvement would be key to implementing it? Was it because this Government could not bear to be told that they were in the wrong, or did they not realise what a mess they were presiding over? Was it deadly arrogance or fatal ignorance? After today's announcement, we know that this lady is for turning.
	There are still many unanswered questions. The Government were warned that there were not enough qualified, accredited and certificated home inspectors in place. Over a year ago, I warned that getting those people in place was crucial. Only last week, the Minister for Housing and Planning told us that we had enough people to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme—she told us that everything would be all right on the night. Why did she offer that cavalier assurance, when the Secretary of State has told us that there will not be enough people in place after all? We know that relations between these Ministers are bad, but did the Secretary of State find out only in the past few days how few qualified people are in place? When did she know the real numbers? And why was not the House informed about the truth last week?
	How can Ministers ever again ask to be taken seriously on the environment, when they have comprehensively mismanaged a measure that they argued throughout was vital to fighting climate change? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that today's judgment in the High Court underlines what we have argued all along and what best practice in the European Union shows—you do not need home information packs for energy performance certificates? Will she agree to meet me, my colleagues, the Liberal Democrats and everyone with an interest in getting the housing market right to ensure that there is at last some expertise in this process?
	Is this not a desperate, last-minute retreat designed to ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning is airlifted out of this Department by her friends in the Treasury in a future reshuffle, so she does not have to cope with the chaos that she has created? And is it not truly tragic that confidence in the industry, the stability of the housing market and the battle against climate change have all been damaged by this Government's arrogance and incompetence?

Andrew Stunell: Smooth implementation is fine but the Secretary of State might acknowledge that it is a bit of shambles at the moment. Last week, I referred to the scheme as a train crash. Today, the first aid workers are on the scene but many hon. Members do not have much confidence in the doctors and nurses who are ministering to the injured.
	Matters first went wrong last July and we were assured that everything would be fixed and ready for this June. It has all gone wrong again. Will the Secretary of State publish the risk assessment for her decision to move the scheme to 1 August? Is she satisfied that the risks inherent in it will be resolved and settled positively before we reach that August date?
	Will she confirm that 3,500 transactions will be completed by 1 August? Mr. McDonald from the Department told the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments that that number was needed before the pilot study could be validated. Is the Secretary of State's choice of 1 August as the new date in any way connected to the fact that it is well beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny?
	The statement refers to four-bedroom homes. Does the right hon. Lady have a legal definition of a four-bedroom home? How many offices, studies, boxrooms and loft conversions will suddenly crop up? What regulations will she propose? Will she confirm that, according to most people's estimates, the number of homes that she is considering will represent around 10 per cent. of the housing stock? How does the two-month delay and the reduction by 90 per cent. of the number of transactions fit with the capacity of 1,500—it may be 5,000—assessors who will be in the market looking for work at that time?
	The Secretary of State referred to stock transfer of local authority housing. I welcome the inclusion of social housing in the scheme. However, to do it at the point of stock transfer, when there may suddenly be 1,000 or 10,000 homes all at once, makes little sense. Will she take a second look at the way in which social housing should be integrated into the scheme?
	Is the Secretary of State persuaded that her Department's third attempt under her leadership to deliver the scheme will be any more successful than the other two, or does she take comfort from the thought that, if it is not, a different ministerial will have to be held to account?

Ruth Kelly: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. I am absolutely clear that energy performance certificates and home information packs have an important role to play, and everyone should take the opportunity today to back those principles. Faced with tough decisions on tackling climate change, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and his party duck the challenge at every opportunity. Today is yet another example of their failure to live up to their slogans.

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Lady has come here to make a statement about problems that she has now resolved. She has been asked a simple question about the definition of four-bedroomed and three-bedroomed houses. Let me remind her that only one group there is lower in public opinion than we are: the estate agents who will now be responsible for this provision. She knows very well that people will be able, quite happily, to take one of their four bedrooms and turn it into a boxroom, creating a three-bedroomed house. There is no way that she can define that in any legal sense. This is a thoroughgoing disaster. Why does she not drop it and start again?

Ruth Kelly: It is pretty clear to me that if a house owner has applied for planning permission for a fourth bedroom, it must be a three-bedroomed house. It is pretty hard to carry out an energy performance assessment on an extension that has not yet been built. This just serves to prove that a common-sense approach will be adopted by the trading standards officers who will have to enforce our policy.

Tom Levitt: I hesitate to use words such as "capitalism" in this place, but is it not a prime example of the wasteful nature of market forces to insist on a situation in which the same survey is carried out time after time on the same property by different purchasers? This process is designed to end that practice, which the Conservatives and their lawyer friends are trying to keep going. It is essential that we get the process back on the road and ensure that the careers of people such as my constituents, who have committed themselves to becoming inspectors, are protected, preserved and enhanced. They will not be impressed by the hilarity on the Conservative Benches this afternoon.

Ruth Kelly: As a result of my comments today, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figures are changing rapidly. I will put a full set of figures before the House today—I will place a copy in the Library—and I will also make sure that his parliamentary questions are fully answered.
	I have come to this House to be as open and transparent as possible. It is clear from the figures that I have presented today that a huge number of people want to become trained energy assessors. However, it is also clear that many of them feel worried about paying their accreditation fees because of the uncertainty that has been hanging over the process. The way aheadthat I have set out today is designed to resolve that uncertainty.

Ruth Kelly: Our policy is the right one: there should be up-front information for the consumer and we should introduce energy performance certificates to try to meet our climate change goal. However, the uncertainty created by the campaign of misinformation led by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), combined with the threat of judicial review, has led in the final weeks to not enough energy assessors paying their dues. I have come to the House to put that right.

John Hutton: I wish to make a statement on the modernisation proposals announced by Remploy earlier today. Remploy was established after the second world war to support injured servicemen and womento progress into mainstream employment. Today, Remploy factories employ about 5,000 disabled people across a range of sectors, from office furniture to electronics. Despite profound shifts in our economy over the past 60 years, there has been relatively little change in the nature of Remploy factories. However, the combination of new technology and the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation in Europe is creating new opportunities for disabled people in mainstream employment.
	In 2005, a National Audit Office report argued that
	"most of the businesses—particularly those in more traditional manufacturing and factory settings—are not currently sustainable in economic terms and are unlikely to become so in the future."
	The NAO also found that Remploy Interwork, which places people primarily in outside employment, appears to offer a more cost-effective service and accounts for three-quarters of all progressions to unsupported employment. The report stated that
	"there remains substantial advantage in expanding this area of provision further, both in terms of reduced costs and the number of individuals who can be helped."
	Following the publication of the NAO report, in March 2006 I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers and Stephen Duckworth to conduct a strategic review of future business options for the company. The report set out a range of scenarios for the business, from no change to complete closure of the factory network. I explicitly ruled out both of those options. In responding to the report last July, I said that I was willing to invest more in Remploy, but on the basis of reform, to help more disabled people and to provide better value for the taxpayer.
	The average subsidy for a Remploy factory worker is about £20,000 per year, which is substantially more than the subsidy available under my Department's Workstep programme, and also far greater than the £5,300 average one-off cost of getting someone into a mainstream job through Remploy's work placement arm. Last year, Remploy placed 5,200 people into mainstream employment, thereby outstripping for the first time the number employed in its factory network. Last July, I set out a five-year funding envelope for the company, maintaining baseline funding of £111 million per year to give it stability, and asked its board to bring forward a restructuring plan to modernise the business to support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into work. I also made it clear that any such proposals must fully and fairly protect Remploy's disabled employees from compulsory redundancy.
	After extensive consultation with the representatives of the work force, Remploy has today produced its proposals. There are five core components. First, and most importantly, the company aims to quadruple mainstream job entries to 20,000 a year over the next five years, helping more disabled people gain sustainable employment. Secondly, it is planning significantly to decrease management overheads by £49 million over the next five years. Thirdly, it proposes the closure of32 of the existing 83 factories, with a further 11 factories to transfer employees to neighbouring sites. Fourthly, the company has again confirmed that there will be no compulsory redundancies for disabled employees. And fifthly, a comprehensive support package will help employees through the transition. That latter step will ensure that all disabled employees continue to enjoy their current terms and conditions, including their membership of Remploy's final salary pension scheme, should they decide to take employment outside of Remploy. The company is now beginning a formal consultation with its trade unions and employees, as well as preparing a disability impact assessment as part of its disability equality duty obligations.
	I understand the concerns that the proposals will raise for some of Remploy's employees. It is important that employees, and the trade unions representing them, are now given the time and space to respond to the consultation. Support and guidance is being made available for all Remploy staff through the factory network today and throughout the consultation period. That will include the option of counselling and advice from an independent organisation. I recognise that many hon. Members in the House today will have Remploy factories in their constituencies. I want Members to be fully involved in the consultation process and I will make sure that that happens. I understand that the Remploy chairman has already briefed Members earlier today.
	I expect to receive the company's final proposals later this year. No decision on the future of the company will take place until then. Once final proposals have been submitted, I will consider whether we are able to offer the company additional funding to facilitate modernisation beyond the £555 million already pledged.
	Reform of Remploy is about extending opportunity to disabled people. It is about the fundamental principle that disabled people should have the opportunity to work in mainstream employment, but that a sheltered environment should also be provided where that is the best option. As six of the biggest organisations representing disabled people made clear last week in a letter to  The Guardian:
	"The minute you assume someone cannot work in the outside world you will certainly ensure they don't. Disabled people want to work in ordinary places doing ordinary jobs. It is a matter of human rights."
	Increasing employment opportunities for disabled people and ensuring Remploy's duty of care to its staff are the two fundamental tests against which Ministers will ultimately assess Remploy's proposals.

John Hutton: In that case, I must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. However, I have the figures for the number of Remploy employees over 60, and can tell him that there are 650 in that category. I will get the figure for the numbers aged over 50.
	It is true that many of those who will be caught up in the changes will be learning disabled. I think that the majority of disabled people now supported by Remploy are in that category. I have no doubt that the company's experience in the field and willingness and ability to work with others mean that it will do all it can to help those people to find alternative work.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about factories in areas of high unemployment such as Leicester. The Remploy board has made it clear today that its final proposals—and I remind the House that there are no final proposals before Ministers yet—will have to take local labour market conditions fully into account. That was one of the factors the company took into account when drawing up the proposed sites that may be affected by the closure programme, but it will certainly reflect on the matter.
	I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of work. It is important that Members appreciate that no disabled person will lose the prospect of employment through these plans. As he said, about 2,300 disabled people will be affected by the proposals and the company has guaranteed that every person who wants to continue employment will be found alternative work, whether within the Remploy family, in sheltered employment environments or in mainstream employment. Again, I make it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.
	The hon. Gentleman, like me, referred to the support package on offer from the company. The support package is unprecedented; it is not TUP—and, indeed, goes significantly beyond TUPE, especially in relation to continued membership of the final salary pension scheme, which will be important if the changes are to be made in an appropriate and sensitive way, as they must be.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the remaining factories in the Remploy network. As yet, there are no final proposals before Ministers, but the view of the company and the board is that the plans, subject to the outcome of the consultation, offer the company the best prospect of securing sustainable, long-term employment for the Remploy factory network. It is true, as I am afraid I have to say clearly today, that there can be no 100 per cent. guarantee for the indefinite future—that is no longer the world in which we live—but I strongly believe that, subject to the outcome of consultation on the final proposals, the generally accepted view is that the right way forward will consist of those types of change. That is the best way to offer the prospect of secure long-term employment for the remaining employees of Remploy.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it.
	In principle, promoting mainstream employment must be the right approach to deliver independent living, and Remploy is to be congratulated on the success of its programmes to get people into mainstream employment. Expanding such schemes is both necessary and appropriate and I particularly welcome the consultation that will take place.
	Nevertheless, today's statement will have a deeply unsettling effect on the Remploy work force, some of whom I met in Halifax yesterday. Can the Minister confirm that half of all Remploy factories will be affected in some way by the initial proposals announced today? Can he explain why there was such a long period of uncertainty before the announcement was made, which added to the stress on many of the employees waiting for the announcement?
	The Government owe a duty of care to the individuals involved, and their interests must be at the forefront of our minds today. Over what period does the Secretary of State expect the closure programme to be phased in? How long will the affected individuals have to find alternative employment? Perhaps he could also say a little more about the assistance that will be offered to those people. Is he satisfied that the programme announced today and the plans for the workers from now on are consistent with Remploy's disability equality duty?
	Today's announcement cannot be isolated from the Government's wider policies for helping disabled people into work. If Remploy is to redirect its resources, the Government need to do the same. Is the Secretary of State willing to provide additional support for Remploy, if necessary, to meet its target of getting 20,000 additional disabled people into work everyyear through its mainstream employment programmes? In the same vein, has the Minister been able to find the additional resources needed to roll out the pathways to work programme appropriately, and has he beenable to persuade the Treasury to accept the new funding mechanism, proposed by David Freud, which would allow additional resources to be invested in the area?
	What steps are the Government taking to increase employer engagement in order to help disabled people into work, and what steps are they taking to tackle prejudice and promote the benefits of employing disabled people and those with mental health conditions? The Government have a responsibility to expand dramatically the efforts to help all disabled people into work. They need to do so to ensure that all disabled people, including Remploy employees, have the fair opportunities to work that they deserve and that they have every right to expect.

Clive Efford: May I stress to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the consultation must be genuine? I cannot imagine how the workers at my local factory must be feeling, having heard the recommendation that their workplace should close. My concern is that the recommendations are being made before Remploy has had the opportunity to prove that it can find places in mainstream workplaces for current Remploy employees. I think that that will be an extremely difficult task.
	May I suggest that there is a way forward that has not been put forward by Remploy or been considered in enough detail? It is that Remploy factories could provide a training base—a stepping stone—for people with disabilities who are trying to go back into mainstream work. Although it is important that people have dignity in the workplace and should be supported in mainstream employment, there is undoubtedly an element of the Remploy work force that cannot be employed in any other setting. Getting rid of these unique workplaces, where people can have dignity and be safely employed, will be a retrograde step. We will not be able recreate them. We need to consider innovative ways to use Remploy factories in a new form, to meet all the needs of the work force for whom we are trying to provide a service.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require planning approval for the change of use of housing to multiple occupation; and for connected purposes.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the housing landscape in many of our towns and cities, where parts of those towns have become areas where the house in multiple occupation is the predominant form of housing. In many instances those houses are not what one might call traditional HMOs—an original large house subdivided into flats—but are a single house remaining as such, occupied by perhaps half a dozen people paying rent for their individual occupation of an otherwise unconverted house.
	This is particularly the case in towns and cities where there are substantial numbers of students. With the expansion of higher education over the past two decades, there are many such towns. The city that I represent, Southampton, is one of those, with an estimated population of 28,000 students in a city of about 220,000 people. It is a city that I represent along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the former president of the students union. Although university authorities have built increasing numbers of halls of residence and student flats, the majority of students live in such HMOs, under one roof, sharing facilities and, according to a court ruling of 1995 in the Barnes  v. Sheffield case, living as a single household.
	It is right that a range of types of accommodation should be available to people. HMOs of various types provide important accommodation for young people, single people and people who are seeking shorter-term accommodation. The difficulty that local authorities face in considering how the different types of housing stock are to be deployed is that most types of stock—flats and small or larger houses—and changes of use of building from commercial to residential, are all subject to the local planning regime, whereas the conversion of houses from family occupation to multiple occupation is not.
	Under present planning legislation, a landlord can simply purchase a family house, possibly with a buy-to-let mortgage, and place five or six tenants in the house immediately. Cumulatively, such HMOs have a substantial impact on the character and amenity of neighbourhoods and, over and above the self-sustaining market that they create, on the inability of families to purchase houses where "studentification" has taken hold, because of the power of purchase that such landlords hold. HMOs raise all the issues of transient tenancies, of large numbers of extra cars parked, and possibly of noise. In short, the area becomes quite different in character.
	Despite the fact that HMOs are a specific kind of housing, they are the only kind that is effectively beyond the reach of local planning arrangements. That is because under present planning law, dwelling-houses are regarded as one kind of use, and are so defined in the use class orders that derive from planning legislation. According to the use class orders, with minor but important exceptions a dwelling-house is a dwelling-house is a dwelling-house, regardless who occupies it. That is understandable in planning terms, as planning law is blind to occupants, and is concerned with land use and its effects.
	To an extent, planning law acknowledges that multiple occupancy of a house has land use consequences, but the use class order effectively exempts a change of use within the class for a house with up to seven occupants. A very large HMO, therefore, can come under local planning scrutiny, but the vast bulk of HMOs do not have seven occupants, so the distinction is pretty redundant.
	Housing law has moved to recognise the reality of houses in multiple occupation. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Housing Act 2004 established extensive procedures whereby local authorities can register HMOs and license landlords to run them. The qualifying point for general registration under the Housing Act is five occupants living in a three-storey house, although more widespread registration schemes may be introduced with the agreement of the Secretary of State.
	That is a welcome change. As it is implemented, it delivers the prospect of HMOs that are better managed, and the revocation of licences for landlords where such management consistently falls below a level acceptable to local communities. However, it does nothing about HMOs becoming HMOs in the first place. Furthermore, it introduces two different regimes for the definition of HMOs. The Housing Act, for example, specifically includes student houses in its definition of HMOs, because it defines an HMO as a dwelling in which a number of people not related to each other live under one roof. That, in turn, entails a definition of a family and what it means, in housing terms, to be related. Nevertheless, the Act encompasses the reality of HMOs in a way that planning law does not.
	What is to be done? The title of my Bill indicates what should be done: the process of effectively changing the use of a family house to that of an HMO, whether that happens through the purchase of a previously occupied house or, as is becoming increasingly common, through the purchase of a new property for buy-to-let purposes, should be regulated through the local development and planning process.
	It has been suggested that the way to achieve that aim is to change the use class definition of a dwelling-house and to place use as an HMO outside the definition—the placing of a HMO into the category of use changes that always need planning permission. That is, essentially, what has been done in Northern Ireland. That route is attractive, but the numbers entailed in the revised order in Northern Ireland—more than two unrelated people in a house—suggest that there might be difficulties in defining what relationships trigger what definition, and whether a small HMO can in reality be said to lead to a real effect on land use as a result of the change in the nature of occupation.
	In my view, it would be far simpler to bring the definitions in the Housing Act 2004 of numbers licensable, and what constitutes a family, into planning law—in this instance into the use class and schedules in the use class order derived from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. My Bill would redefine an HMO as requiring planning permission for change of use if more than four people were to occupy the house, and to bring the Housing Act 2004 definition of a family into planning law. In that way, local authorities would have the ability, subject to all the proper safeguards and requirements of the planning process, to determine whether all but the smallest HMOs should receive the go-ahead. That might be backed up by guidance statements about density in local planning framework documents. Local authorities would also be able to cross-reference the houses coming before them for licensing purposes to check whether those houses should go through the planning process, and whether enforcement action should be taken. In truth, this Bill would be a modest amendment to existing planning law; indeed, it would amend existing orders following primary legislation.
	The Bill is modest, but it could have a large effect on the weave of the local variety of housing provision in localities in towns and cities, so that the unplanned and often unanticipated swing of entire streets or neighbourhoods towards HMOs would become, over time, a thing of the past. I therefore commend the Bill to the House—but in the uneasy knowledge that it is just possible that it may not complete its passage through the House, even if its progress is agreed today.
	I therefore also commend the provisions in the Bill to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government, who by felicitous coincidence are sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon in anticipation of future business. I say to them that spending an afternoon Upstairs in Committee would make a real and substantial difference to the future mix and balance of communities, as I have described today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Andy Reid, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Alan Simpson, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Martin Salter, Sandra Gidley and Fiona Mactaggart.

'(1) Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of economic, social or environmental well-being etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3(7) (limits on power to promote well-being) and section 4(5) (strategies for promoting well-being), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers".
	(3) In section 5 (power to amend or repeal enactments relating to power to promote well-being), for subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the Welsh Ministers.
	(4A) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—
	(a) must not make any provision amending, repealing or disapplying any Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales, and
	(b) must not make any provision amending, revoking or disapplying subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
	(4B) Subsection (4A) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision."
	(4) In subsection (5) of that section, for "The National Assembly for Wales" substitute "The Welsh Ministers".
	(5) In section 6 (power to modify enactments concerning plans etc)—
	(a) in subsection (1), at the end insert "so far as that enactment has effect in relation to a local authority in England"; and
	(b) omit subsections (5) and (6).
	(6) In section 7 (power to modify enactments concerning plans etc: Wales)—
	(a) in subsection (1)—
	(i) for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers"; and
	(ii) for "to which subsection (2) applies" substitute "(whenever passed or made) which requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publishany plan or strategy relating to any particular matter";
	(b) omit subsection (2);
	(c) in subsection (4), for "the National Assembly for Wales considers" substitute "the Welsh Ministers consider"; and
	(d) omit subsection (6).
	(7) At the end of that section insert—
	"(8) An order under this section may not make a provision which, if it were a provision of a Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, would be outside the Assembly's legislative competence.
	(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), section 94(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 has effect as if paragraph (a) (matters within legislative competence) were omitted.
	(10) Subject to subsection (11), a statutory instrument which contains an order under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(11) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
	(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description, or
	(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description,
	is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.".
	(8) In section 9 (procedure for orders under section 5 or 6)—
	(a) in subsection (2), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers"; and
	(b) in subsection (3)(d), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers".'.— [Angela E. Smith.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alistair Burt: I welcome the Minister and thank her for that brief explanation of the amendments. When we asked her Department last week whether explanatory notes on the new clauses were available, we were told that they would not be available until the Bill reaches the House of Lords. I was therefore a little in the dark, but her clear explanation has helped me to some degree.
	The amendments represent a perfectly proper devolutionary measure, which we welcome. That is a slight contrast with other elements of the Bill. As Ministers know—we will discuss this when we reach some of the other clauses—our main hesitation is that we are not sure that it is truly a devolutionary measure, despite the Government's protestations otherwise. In some areas—we will probably divide on some of them—we wish that there had been greater devolution than is proposed. However, in this instance, as in other parts of the Bill, the Minister is definitely doing the job, which is welcome.
	It will be a matter of interest to see how the new relationship between the Government and the National Assembly for Wales works after the little stir of the mix in the Celtic firmament. The cosy relationships between Labour Administrations north of the border and west of Offa's dyke will create an interesting but necessary tension as localism and devolution is properly explored between the Assembly and Parliament. Another necessary tension to be explored between localism and devolution is that of local authorities and Westminster, particularly as the mix has been well and truly stirred by the results of the last set of local elections. As I read them out last Thursday, I do not intend to do so again, but we all know the score in that respect.
	In a desire to move on, without further ado I welcome the amendments and appreciate the Minister's explanation.

Robert Syms: I have always rather liked single-member electoral areas for reasons thatthe Minister has suggested. There is a line of accountability with smaller districts, which can make life that little bit easier. We had quite a canter around the subject in Committee, where I raised some concerns because it was not clear at that stage whether varying the number of members per ward was to be upwards or downwards. We received the Minister's assurances that it would be three, two or one and I recall our discussing the geography of Tameside in great detail.
	The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a good argument about the position when authorities put together many towns that all have their own proud history. He argued that fitting the electoral arrangements to suit strong local ties sometimes caused difficulty. I know from experience as a parliamentary candidate in Walsall that it was not unusual to find that an electoral area based on a housing estate had had a bit added on from somewhere 3 or 4 miles away in order to meet the electoral arrangements. I can see the overwhelming logic of what the Government are trying to do, but I would like to probe them further on one or two aspects.
	Under new clause 4, an authority that has a council election will be able to apply to the Electoral Commission for single-member wards or to review each of the electoral areas within its district. If it had 20 wards, I presume—I would like the Minister to confirm it—that it could recommend that they all be single-member areas or that some should be three or two or one in order to suit the local circumstance. I presume that the boundary committee would look into any such proposal, reflect on it and consult before giving its decision to the local authority.
	I presume that the purpose is to stop gerrymandering. Clearly, a ward of three members might have one political outcome, but in a ward of two members or one it would not be beyond the wit of anyone who had knocked on doors and gained some feel for the area to create a different pattern of representation. If an authority were allowed to do that without going to the boundary committee, it might be possible to break up certain wards in a borough for some sort of party political advantage. We all realise that we would not want that, simply because if one party won one borough that way, another party might do it in another borough—so we all want a fair system of representation.
	Will the Minister confirm that if an authority puts up a scheme, some consultation would have to take place? I presume that the boundary committee would undertake further consultation in order to decide whether to approve a scheme or, if not, to give its reasons for declining it. I presume that the boundary committee could propose variations on a scheme, as with any of its dealings, because it does not wholly agree with what the authority is proposing.

Andrew Stunell: Things would be a great deal easier for the Government and the Conservatives if there were proportionality in the voting system. That would be fairer for the voter and simplify the legislation substantially, and some of the issues that have been highlighted would not have arisen. However, given that we have been unsuccessful in persuading Members to add such a provision to the Bill, we do not dissent from the Government's proposals and think that the direction that they are going in is appropriate.
	Nevertheless, I wish to discuss our amendmentNo. 265. It is simple: it proposes that any order to bring together local elections and European elections should be made at least a year before it is due to take effect. We discussed in Committee the concept of bringing together those two dates, and the Minister explained the Government's thinking. I have subsequently received a letter from the Electoral Commission—I am unsure whether an identical letter has been sent to the Minister. Its author states:
	"I am writing in response to the comments you made during the second reading debate and committee stages...I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Electoral Commission's concerns"
	about the new clause. The letter goes on to say that the new clause allows the Secretary of State
	"to combine local elections with a European parliamentary election by statutory order.
	We believe that provision should be made on the face of the Bill for the Order moving the date of the election to have to be made at least a year before it is due to take effect."
	The Electoral Commission gives two reasons for that:
	"We are concerned that without such provision, present or future Governments may be able to gain political advantage by moving the date of the elections at a later stage.
	We are also concerned that late notice of a change of election date would not give electoral administrators sufficient time to be prepared for a combined election."

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman, who is a close geographical neighbour of mine, is absolutely wrong, because whether this provision is added to the Bill would make no difference to the procedure used when the foot and mouth epidemic broke out, when provisions had to be brought before the House and discussed. That is the safeguard situation. This provision does not remove the capacity of the Government or Parliament to change dates in an emergency—such as the invasion of Kent by some unforeseen enemy. One can see that changes might have to be made in extremis, but the provision is not about such situations; nor, when Ministers introduced the provision, did they suggest that it had anything to do with such situations.
	As well as giving two reasons for concern, the Electoral Commission pointed out that the provision is consistent with existing legislation. I was not aware of the reference it gives, but it says:
	"A one year notice period would also be consistent with existing legislation. Section 37(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides for the ordinary date of local elections to be changed as long as it is done before 1st February the year before (i.e. slightly more than a year) the original date of the election."
	In one sense, this is a probing amendment, but we have been put up to it by the Electoral Commission, which has given good reasons why it should be taken more seriously than just an attempt to squeeze a concession out of the Government. The commission has made a strong case, and all the Opposition parties share the concerns about it. The present Government are full of integrity and good intentions—they never make a mistake or a cheap political judgment—so, obviously, I exonerate them from the wild accusation by the commission that they might be involved in such activity. However, the commission also mentions future Governments, and by the time we reach June 2009, Labour might be in opposition and might face a different, more oppressive Government.
	In Committee, the Minister was quizzed on the point of introducing the provision. She replied:
	"We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2007;c. 591-2.]
	Ministers would still have that opportunity if the amendment were accepted. It is just that they would have to think of it a bit earlier and not leave it to be informed by some tactical political consideration nearer the date.
	We would argue that the concept of making that change and imposing a limit is what the Government originally set out to do. It is sensible to introduce the safeguard that the Electoral Commission believes should be introduced, and the idea of a one-year moratorium on date changes fits existing legislative provision, in the 1983 Act. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. If they do not feel able to accede to our proposal at this point, I hope that they will give a clear indication that they will engage in discussion with the commission and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later. For a second champagne moment, the Minister could say that she has heard the argument, listened to what the commission has had to say and is delighted to accept our amendment.

Angela Smith: The champagne moment has passed.
	We have had an interesting discussion and I was pleased by the reassurance from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that his amendment was a probing amendment. Both he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about having to ensure that the election process was as simple as possible and that any changes provided clarity for electors. The hon. Member for Poole made some specific points on that subject and I shall come to those shortly.
	It is fair to say that all the amendments are about giving councils more say in the electoral arrangements for their area and enabling them to take the initiative. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that the public retain confidence in the fairness and probity of our electoral arrangements. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Poole made it clear that he did not intend to press his amendment No. 163 to a vote, as it would remove probity from the process, leaving it open to manipulation. The Electoral Commission opposed the amendment on the grounds that it risked undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across local authorities.
	The hon. Member for Poole said that he was trying to ensure that it would not be possible for local councils, on a whim, to increase the number of electors in a ward where they had a majority, and reduce the number of electors in another ward. In fact, although the Government amendments would not do that, his amendment would. Taking it at face value, amendment No. 163 could mean that electors in a ward could be asked by the council, "Do you want to increase the number of councillors you have?" It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the electors to respond that they did want that but, since it does not specify that the offer would have to be made to residents in every ward, the amendment would therefore undermine the principles of equality of representation. All hon. Members are elected, and I appreciate that all of us would like to have some control over our constituency boundaries. Those of us facing boundary commission changes perhaps feel that more strongly than others, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's aim is to ensure that there is equality between all the votes cast in an election.
	The hon. Gentleman asked various specific questions about the boundary committee's role in single-member wards. When a local authority approaches the Electoral Commission to seek authority to move to single-member wards, it will be for the commission to decide whether that move were appropriate. The exceptional cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where multi-member wards were considered to be more appropriate, would be referred to the boundary committee. Councils would not be able to make the decision in such cases.
	The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether single-member wards could revert back at a later date. They can, but such decisions would be made following the regular review undertaken by the boundary committee. The Bill does not provide for such decisions, as a two-way street already exists.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to a letter that he had received from the Electoral Commission. I wish that I had been able to see it before today's debate, as that would have enabled me to give a more considered response, but I hope that he will consent to give us sight of that letter as the debate goes on. He explained that his amendment No. 265 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House any order that combined local government and European elections one year before it was due to take effect.
	When Ministers looked at the amendment, our concern was that, given the need for meaningful consultation on decisions about setting election dates, the lead-in time for all the necessary procedures would be something like 18 months. We would like to discuss the proposal further, as we want to ensure that the process is not rushed, but orders such as the one that we are discussing must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we consider that to be adequate protection.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove was worried about party political advantage, although I do not see where that would lie. The Government do not consider his amendment to be necessary but, without having seen the views of the Electoral Commission, it is difficult to make any further comment. I hope that he might be prepared to share the contents of the letter from the Electoral Commission with us.

'(1) An order under this section is an order which requires, prohibits or regulates the taking of specified actions by entities connected with a local authority.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to—
	(a) all English local authorities;
	(b) English local authorities of particular descriptions;
	(c) particular English local authorities.
	(3) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under this section in relation to—
	(a) all Welsh local authorities;
	(b) Welsh local authorities of particular descriptions;
	(c) particular Welsh local authorities.
	(4) An order under this section may also include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—
	(a) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to entities connected with the local authority;
	(b) the taking of specified actions by members or officers of a local authority who are qualifying persons.
	(5) An order under this section may make provision in relation to—
	(a) every entity connected with a local authority;
	(b) such entities of a particular description.
	(6) Where an order under this section makes provision in relation to entities of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of entity to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order; or
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.
	(7) For the purposes of this section an entity ("E") is "connected with" a local authority at any time if—
	(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and
	(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.
	(8) In this section—
	"actions" includes courses of action;
	"English local authority" means a local authority in England;
	"entity" means any entity, whether or not a legal person;
	"financial year" means a period for which accounts of the local authority must be prepared by reason of section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998(c. 18) or section 13 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);
	"local authority" means any body which—
	(a) is a local authority for the purposes of section 21 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (see subsection (6) of that section and section 23 of that Act); and(b) is required to prepare statements of accounts by regulations made under section 27 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or section 39 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);
	"qualifying person" means a person who—
	(a) is authorised to represent the local authority at meetings of an entity that is connected with the local authority; or(b) is a member or director of such an entity or the holder of any other specified position in relation to such an entity;
	"specified" means specified, or of a description specified, by the order;
	"Welsh local authority" means a local authority in Wales.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the opportunity to table these amendments. I beg the indulgence of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) as I try to explain the proposals and to persuade the House that they are wholly desirable. I shall not go into too much detail, because if you thought that some of our previous debates were technical, Madam Deputy Speaker, "you ain't seen nothing yet", as they used to say in westerns.
	The arrangements for ensuring accountability and propriety in the conduct of local authority companies are set out in part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in an order made under it—the Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995. The current controls variously placed on the face of legislation and in the provisions of the order address the accountability, auditing and personnel requirements of a local authority company and are known collectively as the propriety controls.
	The existing part 5 arrangements are complex, outdated, and cover only companies, which is the essential point. Local authorities operate through entities that are not embraced by the narrow definition of a company provided in part 5.
	Previously, the capital finance regime for local authority companies relied on part 5 to define the relationship between a local authority and its companies when deciding the borrowing limits for the authority as a whole—not just for the company. Now, under the prudential borrowing regime, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who is not in the Chamber, authorities are free to take on as much debt as they can afford to service from their revenue resources. There are no longer any direct constraints on borrowing by the companies or similar entities that they own.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He quite rightly says that local councilsare proprietors—if that is the right word—of organisations other than companies, as defined by the companies legislation. Will he go into a little more detail about precisely what he means? Is he talking about partnerships, associations, sole traders or companies that in some way are not controlled by the companies legislation? I was under the impression that a body could not call itself a company or a corporation unless it was either a limited company or a public limited company. Perhaps he could amplify that point.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman said that he was grateful for my giving way. I am grateful to him for intervening, because it gives me a chance to draw breath. As I will go on to explain in more detail, in the diverse world of commissioning and in the light of the greater co-operation and the partnerships between local authorities and other public, private and voluntary sector organisations, the issue of the types of organisations that are owned by local authorities is complex. The idea of a council owning a company has been around for many years. Interestingly, the definition is partly based on companies legislation and partly on part V of the 1989 Act. A local authority company is in some ways different from what one might in lay person's terms describe as a company.
	The next part of my speech explains the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he will support the measures when he has heard the explanation. I am grateful that he has stayed awake to listen to what I am saying. Tens—if not hundreds—of millions of pounds of public money is backed up in these organisations, so it is important that we explain the measures and seek the support of the House.
	There are no longer direct constraints on borrowing by companies or similar entities that authorities own, but any transaction by such an entity that increases or reduces the revenue resources of the authority will still need to be taken into account under the prudential regime, since it will affect the amount of borrowing that the authority can afford to service. The borrowing of that organisation is ultimately underwritten by the local authority and, therefore, the taxpayer. There are implications not just for the local authority and the council tax payer, but overall for public sector borrowing requirements and therefore for the central tax payer.
	The borrowing regime currently relies on a different set of accounting definitions, which are provided inthe Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy "Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom: A Statement of Recommended Practice", which is known in the trade as SORP. I have a copy of the document and I am tempted to say that if the Opposition push their amendments in later groups, I will read it out.

Michael Fabricant: If you go too fast, you mayneed to.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. My intention and belief is that the measures will have the opposite effect. Including in statute what the CIPFA code does will guarantee that public sector borrowing overall—and specifically borrowing in relation to local authorities—is more accurately defined. That will mean that the books can better reflect the liability that exists. I would not want any suggestion whatsoever that the Chancellor's golden rules were being broken in any way, especially at the moment. Local authority organisations such as some of the limited liability partnerships—to give an example, as the hon. Gentleman requested in his previous intervention—are covered by what is currently in the code of practice.
	The new clauses replace part V of the 1989 Act. They will ensure that an appropriate range of entities are covered by propriety controls. They will also provide a less bureaucratic regime for local government in considering the relationship authorities have with their entities—if I can use that term to capture all the bodies involved—for accounting, capital finance and propriety control purposes. Authorities will need to have regard only to a single definition of entities.
	The new clauses confer on the Secretary of State a power to require, regulate or prohibit the taking of specified actions by an entity connected with a local authority. The power is wide enough to ensure that an entity should not undertake an activity that the parent authority could not itself undertake if the need arose to do so. That is an important point for the private sector. Where entities might be in a marketplace with other organisations, we seek to ensure a level playing field for competition. Our intention is to use the power to make an order to apply propriety controls tothe wider range of entities covered by the SORP definitions. We intend to consult on the controls that should apply to such entities, recognising that, as with the present arrangements, it may be appropriate for differential controls to apply to entities depending on the precise relationship of the authority to the body.
	Consistent with that, the provisions permit an order to differentiate the application of controls to entitiesof a particular description, enabling the propriety controls to operate on a tiered basis according to the degree of control that the authority has over the entity—in other words, so that the liability recognises the proportion of involvement in it. New clause 22(6) allows the description of that relationship to be provided by a reference in a document. It is our intention to use that power to differentiate according to accounting definitions contained in the CIPFA SORP guidance.
	An entity is considered to be connected with a local authority if financial information about the entity must be included in the authority's statement of accounts for that year. This shows that the authority is able to derive benefits or to be exposed to the risk of potential losses arising from the relationship and it is these entities that we would wish to apply propriety controls to.
	Under its obligations as a trustee, a local authority could be exposed to the risk of potential losses and therefore we wish to ensure that trusts can be brought within the provisions of new clause 22 should that be desirable. As a trust is a purely equitable obligation, it does not easily fall within the consideration of an entity, which is why we have made this provision. New clause 23 brings trusts within the scope of an order made under new clause 22.
	The existing propriety controls ensure that entities that are significantly connected with a local authority are required to act transparently and in accordance with the standards of the authorities themselves. To ensure that we can replicate these controls, new clause 24 makes further provision about what propriety controls in an order made under new clause 22 might contain.
	We recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances in which the application of the propriety controls might not be appropriate to individual or particular descriptions of entities. Therefore, new clause 25 provides that the Secretary of State in England, or Ministers in Wales, can direct that these may be exempted from an order made under new clause 22.
	Other legislation relies on the definitions of "control", "joint control" and "influence" in part V. Following the repeal of part V, new clause 26 will give the Secretary of State the power to define, for the purposes of other enactments, those definitions by order. Although that is a separate order-making power, we intend to use the definitions provided by the CIPFA SORP guidance. New clause 27 makes similar provision to new clause 26, but the power is conferred on Welsh Ministers to define definitions for other enactments that are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.
	New clause 28 will repeal part V of the 1989 Act. It will also allow any consequential amendments made to subordinate legislation to make reference to a definition contained in a document identified by the order, such as the CIPFA SORP. AmendmentsNos. 114, 115, 117, 121 and 122 will make provision regarding the procedure for orders made under new clause 22, the extent of the repeal of part V of the 1989 Act, and the commencement of the provisions. Amendment No. 130 details the extent of the repeals made by the provision. New schedule 3 relates to the consequential amendments that are necessary due to the repeal of part V to ensure the competence of enactments.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the new clauses and amendments. I read them carefully when they were tabled and started to wonder about their purpose, which he helpfully clarified. I have some questions about the measures because I have been in touch with the Local Government Association. While it sees them as a replacement for existing clauses, it is worried about the wide-ranging powers that are being taken and wants clarification of several aspects of the powers.
	What prompted the tabling of the new clauses? Have a series of problems been associated with the definitions of entities or the different forms of arm's length bodies that are run by local authorities? Are we considering purely a series of drafting changes, or do the measures reflect concern that has been raised by auditors or others? Does the fact that the measures have been introduced reveal an underlying worry about the way in which the bodies have been working, or does the Minister believe that this is purely a tidying process?
	I was interested by the Minister's little exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the public sector borrowing requirement. The Chancellor's ability to move things off the balance sheet is legendary. There is no danger of golden rules or anything else being broken while the Chancellor remains in his post, or while he remains Chancellor when he becomes Prime Minister, as he undoubtedly will. His ability to shift things to ensure that he does not break the golden rule will no doubt continue. I am not quite sure whether the powers are needed in such circumstances. We have noted the nifty ability to change golden rules and doubt that that will change much under a future regime.
	The new clauses will provide for the original powers, although the provisions have been redrafted. How often have the original powers needed to be used? There are two sorts of power: the power to prohibit or regulate under new clause 22, and the power to apply for consent under new clause 24. Has the Secretary of State used those powers, or have permissions been requested by local authorities? Have the powers been used often, or are they effectively nominal? I am trying to get to the heart of where the measures have come from. Have they arisen due to problems, are they designed to address anticipated problems, or are they purely drafting changes to accommodate the rise of entities in their different forms?
	Let me ask a question about the entities themselves. How many are we talking about? Is there are growing trend of such entities in local authorities? To that extent, is the Minister expressing concern that the bodies are moving slightly outside the control of local authorities and the Government? Is there any evidence that the number of entities is growing significantly and that such controls are thus necessary? To what extent does the Minister think that the Government are carrying out an exercise in second guessing?
	Although we are considering a devolutionary Bill, we are discussing measures that give the Secretary of State powers that look significant on paper, even though the Government have the back-up position that the PSBR is relevant and that the Secretary of State must thus remain in control. However, if we are talking about the extent of risk taking among local authorities and the Government, as we will on Third Reading and we did earlier in the debate, how does the Minister see the powers fitting in with that?

Neil Turner: The Minister might have inadvertently misled the House at the start of his speech. He indicated that, "You ain't seen nothing yet," came from a western, but it was actually said byAl Jolson in "The Jazz Singer". I would not want the Minister to have to come back to the House to make an abject apology for that, and neither would I want him to reply in syncopation.

Michael Fabricant: Following that brilliant speech, I do not know whether I can do justice to the debate. However, I want to raise several issues, although I was broadly content with what the Minister said. I understand that there are organisations other than just public companies in the sense of plcs and limited companies. Indeed, the Minister even talked about limited partnerships, yet a limited partnership would have been an oxymoron—is that the right word?—a few years ago because partnerships usually have no limits on their liability.
	I was reassured when the Minister said that one of the main objects of this group of new clauses was to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement could be more closely monitored, although I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the goalposts for the economic cycle frequently move to ensure that the golden rule is never breached. Sadly, there are no explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand why, and I am not condemning the Government for it, but it does not make things any easier. I guess that it is a compliment to the civil servants, in that it shows how helpful explanatory notes are when they do produce them.
	Subsection (5) of new clause 22 says that an order under the new clause may make provision in relation to
	"every entity connected with a local authority",
	although it does not actually say owned by the local authority. Subsection (7) carries on from that because it says, in marvellously unclear English:
	"For the purposes of this section an entity ('E') is 'connected with' a local authority at any time if—
	(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and
	(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls."
	I guess that "E" must be the name of a particular entity at that time. It is the phrase "connected with" that I do not understand. The Minister's explanation was perfectly logical, but the new clause does not seem to make any sense. Subsection (8), which contains some definitions, says that
	"'entity' means any entity, whether or not a legal person",
	but it says nothing about its being owned by the authority.
	In Lichfield—I always find myself mentioning Lichfield because it is such a beautiful place—we have a new theatre called the Lichfield Garrick. That would certainly be an entity because it is owned by the authority and, quite rightly and properly, its debt—because all theatres need subsidy and it is a particularly good theatre and it is good that it is subsidised—relates to the debt of the council. However, I wonder whether the wording of new clause 22 would cover other entities, not just those that are owned by local authorities. Why does the new clause refer to every entity as that which is "connected with"? Why are the words "connected with" used?

Michael Fabricant: At least not without payment.
	It is fascinating that the heading of new clause 22, "Entities controlled...by local authorities" implies ownership, but "connected with" does not, and could mean anything. Does that mean that any sort of association will be audited, and would that also apply to the public sector debt? If it did, the golden rule would be burst overnight.

Phil Woolas: I think that where there is unanimity is that the House will remember the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) long after they have forgotten the details of these new clauses.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on his questions. As ever, he has clearly done his research, and he has given me the opportunity to allay the fears that the Local Government Association expressed to him. He asked whether these powers were too wide ranging and what prompted the change. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a history to this. The commitment to review part V of the 1989 Act was indeed trailed, as hon. Members know, through the White Paper "Modern local government: in touch with the people" published in July 1998, and in the "Modernising Local Government Finance" Green Paper in September 2000. The Government have, with their partners, a capital programmes working party technical sub-group. In 2003, at that sub-group, the LGA expressed a desire to move local authority companies to be defined according to accounting practices. This Bill provides an opportunity to do that, now that there have been adequate discussions. If I may, I shall explain that.
	We intend, of course, to consult on the content of the proposed order. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether there had been problems or whether we were tidying up. Essentially, we are tidying up because of the change in the architecture of local government provision of services. For the record, I am informed that the power has been used only twice since 1989, although I am not aware of the details of those two occasions. The hon. Gentleman implied that the Chancellor has moved the golden rules. I reject that charge, which is not backed up by evidence. Local government borrowing is an important part of the PSBR. The answer to his question about inspection and audit is, yes, they are subject to the same provisions. I am grateful for the caveat that he gave with his question about dormant companies or entities because he is absolutely right—the matter is too detailed for me to attempt an answer now.
	To answer the question of the hon. Memberfor Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about "control", "controlling", "ownership" and "connected with", the point at issue is what the potential liability is. A local authority could control an entity and, through that control, it could incur a liability that was, or was not, dependent on the local authority. The question of ownership and control relates to that. I made reference to that in the eighth point of my opening speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman followed my remarks closely, so I shall not repeat them, but I congratulate him on his vigilance in probing the point.

'(1) In this section a "relevant trust" means a trust connected with a local authority.
	(2) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—
	(a) the taking of specified actions by the trustees of a relevant trust;
	(b) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to the trustees of trusts connected with that local authority;
	(c) the taking of specified actions by a member or officer of a local authority who is a trustee of a trust connected with that local authority.
	(3) Provision included in an order by virtue of this section may relate to—
	(a) the trustees of every relevant trust;
	(b) the trustees of relevant trusts of a particular description.
	(4) Where by virtue of this section an order makes provision in relation to the trustees of trusts of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of trust to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order; or
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.
	(5) For the purposes of this section a trust ("T") is "connected with" a local authority at any time if, according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information aboutT must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.
	(6) In this section the following have the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)—
	"actions";
	"financial year";
	"local authority";
	"specified".'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) Omit Part 5 of the Local Government and HousingAct 1989 (c. 42).
	(2) Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities) (other consequential amendments) has effect.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies where by virtue of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (implied power to amend) any subordinate legislation is amended in consequence of the repeal of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42).
	(4) Any provision inserted or substituted by the amendment may provide for an expression used in such provision to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by such provision;
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Phil Woolas: Putting my CIPFA guidance to one side, we come to a highly political matter that was the subject of significant and constructive debate in Committee. It may be helpful to the House if I explain the purpose and effect of the new clauses and amendments and why we have proposed them.
	The effect of the new clauses and amendments would be to allow local authorities that have at any time been subject to a scheme for partial council elections—normally referred to as "thirds", although that is not always the case—but that are subject to a scheme for whole council elections to revert to a scheme for partial council elections. To use the political jargon, if a council has moved from thirds to all outs, can it move back? I know that there are differences in two-tier areas—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), has explained them to me.
	The Government amendments also amend part 2 of the Bill to require local authorities to pass resolutions for changing their schemes for elections by a two-thirds majority. The same figure applies to districts at the moment. In addition, they extend the permitted resolution period during which a metropolitan district council may first resolve to move to a scheme for whole council elections from 31 December 2007 to 31 December 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), who represents such an area, pressed that point in the Committee.
	In Committee, we listened carefully to the concerns expressed by hon. Members from all three parties about the proposal that local authorities that resolve to move to whole council elections should be unable to move back to partial council elections. At the end of an extremely constructive Committee debate, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) withdrew the amendments that would have allowed county councils and London boroughs to move to partial council elections, even though there is no tradition of partial council elections in those areas.
	We believe that if a council has always held whole council elections—that is the pattern of electionthat the Electoral Commission recommended and demonstrated to be in the interests of electors and effective democratic processes—it would be perverse to give it the option of moving away from those arrangements. However, in Committee we undertook to give further consideration to whether amendments should be made that would allow areas with a tradition of partial council elections to return to that scheme if they thought that whole council elections were not appropriate in their area. I hope that the House will find that the amendments address the concerns that were expressed in Committee, when the issue was subject to extremely constructive scrutiny.
	I hope that I have support in saying that a great deal of experience was brought to the Committee by Members of all parties—people spoke as constituency Members, irrespective of their Government or Opposition roles, and some powerful points were made. The debate has been around for 50 years. I do not want to bore the House with details of my bedtime reading, but I am reading the memoirs of a predecessor in the 1950s, who explained that in 1955-56 the Conservative party had an election commitment to, and a debate in Cabinet on, election by thirds. It wanted to ensure election by thirds in order to secure strong executive leadership on the councils. Fifty years later, that position has been turned around by events but the subject is still debated by elected representatives, both in the House and on councils. It is an important issue, and that is why we considered it in the light of the points made by the Committee. We tabled this group of amendments in that spirit. I am glad to see that, if my reading of the amendment paper is correct, there are no non-Government amendments on the subject, so I hope that our point is accepted.

Phil Woolas: That is an interesting point. The Government's central intention in introducing the measures is to devolve the decision from the Secretary of State to the council. At the moment, the Secretary of State, or Ministers and officials acting on her behalf, take the decision. In my time in office, I have been asked to take decisions on elections in areas of which, in all honesty, I have no personal knowledge, although of course advice is available. We think that that is wrong and we want to devolve that responsibility. We want the safeguard of the two thirds.
	The evidence available is inconclusive. There are many views on why particular decisions are taken. As we debated in Committee, there are those who say that elections by thirds keep the council in touch with the public, keep it on its toes, and make it more responsive. Equally, there are those who say that all-out elections provide for stronger decisions and mean that councils can take better quality decisions in the long run. If we look at the ratings by the Audit Commission and others, we can see that there are cases where there is no relationship between the rating and the electoral cycle. There are also examples of cases in which there is a relationship, and where local and other factors seem to come into play. Indeed, it is partly because there is no decisive evidence, although there is a body of knowledge, that we decided to table the amendments.
	Let me briefly explain the principles behind the amendments. The Government's starting point—the manifesto mentioned this—is the belief that whole council elections create the framework most likely to support and promote the strong and accountable leadership that we need if powers and responsibilities are to be devolved to local councils. There is a relationship between devolution and the responsible holding of power. Whole council elections can strengthen democratic processes by providing clarity to the electorate.
	Secondly, we believe that local authorities should make the decision. That is why the Bill will give them the power to make a resolution to change the electoral cycle if they believe that to be in the best interests of their area. Thirdly, as we stated in the White Paper, we recognise that the pattern of local elections can reflect long-held traditions and be part of the culture of local public life. If a council has been subject to partial council elections since the local government reorganisation in 1974, it will be able to move to whole council elections—and, if it sees fit, it can subsequently return to elections by thirds. I reiterate that the option of moving to partial council elections should not, in our view, be extended to areas where there is no such tradition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan stated in Committee that between electoral cycles
	"there should not be a constant ping-pong".——[ Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2007; c. 211.]
	We therefore propose that any resolution to change the cycle or scheme for elections must be made at a specially convened meeting and be passed by a two thirds majority of those voting. That will ensure that a significant majority of councillors support the change being made. That is the process that currently applies for district councils that have the option of requesting the Secretary of State to make that change.
	Fifthly, we need to set out when a change of electoral cycles can realistically first be made under the Bill. We propose that if a metropolitan district council chooses to make a change, having obtained a two-thirds majority in support of that choice, the first year in which it can have a whole council election will be 2010. For shire districts, including unitaries, the first year will be 2011. I have set those dates because it would be wrong if the electorate were not aware of what they were voting for. If the move was made during the current electoral cycle, it could be unfair. The new clauses and amendments in the group that we are discussing follow the five principles that I have just outlined.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lengthy intervention because inspiration arrived during the course of it. I am told that there are seven districts that hold elections by halves.
	The principle that we are trying to put into the Bill—not just in this part, but across the Bill—is that the route by which a decision is taken is the route by which it can be reversed. In cases where election is by halves, that would apply. Furthermore, given his experience in the GLA, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware than most that the electoral cycle for councils should take into account upper tier and lower tier authorities. In the Bill we are trying to encourage the creation of parish councils. I am not one of those who want huge ballot papers, so I hope that the House will bear with me on that point.
	The new clauses and amendments follow the principles that I have outlined. They also put in place the necessary technical processes to allow the Electoral Commission to review district wards where changesto electoral cycles are being made. In short, the amendments will allow councils to have the flexibility that they need. I commend them to the House.

Tom Levitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on responding to the mood of the Committee, especially the mood on the Labour Back Benches during the Committee, where, as a 100 per cent. loyalist, I still felt the urge to be a rebel on these matters. It did not make sense to me that we should be able to move from one form of voting to another, but not the other way round. We are particularly flattered that it has taken no fewer than 40 amendments in the group before us to address our concerns.
	One concern was that the situation in two-tier authorities had not been fully taken into account by the original drafting of the Bill. Derbyshire county has large single-member wards, and no one would argue that there should be anything but all-out elections every four years. However, I have been involved with local authorities at district level that have had all-out elections, and also with authorities that had elections by thirds, and there is something to be said for both systems. The all-out system provides consistency for at least four years, and if there is a mayoral system, the four-year system probably matches that and supportsit better. On the other hand, a council that goes outby thirds allows a rolling programme, and non-catastrophic evolution. I use the word "catastrophic" advisedly. In High Peak we had all-out elections and lost nine seats on 3 May. Had we had elections by thirds, the outcome would be the equivalent of losing only three seats, which would not have looked quite so catastrophic.
	That is a good reason why we should have been able to have elections by thirds—but in my book continuity wins out. I have served on a local authority thatwas elected by thirds—the same authority on which I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Continuity and evolution are better than a possibly catastrophic pendulum swing every four years.
	I have one or two questions to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, bearing in mind that very few councils have ever taken the opportunity that the existing law provides to change from one system to the other. My guess is that most councils are set up in a certain way and stay like that. If he is allowing only those that have once been elected by thirds and are now all-out to revert to thirds, how many councils is he giving that power to? It seems that only the local authorities that are currently all-out but once upon a time had election by thirds can go back. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) raised the question of halves. That was new to me, too. Can my hon. Friend say whether the same would apply in the case of halves? Would those authorities need to have had a different system in the past in order to qualify for movement between all-out elections and elections by part?
	There is a worry that if councils are given a new right to go in the other direction, but only a handful of them would qualify to be considered, it is not much of a right. I am sorry to put my hon. Friend on the spot,but these questions are important. I hope that the40 amendments will ensure that some councils have the option to move in the other direction, from all-out to halves or thirds, if that is what they choose, subject to the sensible provisos suggested by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

Phil Woolas: Because I have not been asked to until now. I am reflecting the debate in Committee. My hon. Friend should look back on the five principles that I mentioned, one of which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) disagreed with. This might seem surprising coming from the Labour Benches, but tradition is important in this area. It is not desirable to create turbulence in the system, but at the same time we should move in a generally devolutionary direction. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) is trying to move the debate forward. I have tried to ensure that the Government have not been too restrictive in imposing all-out elections, so as to allow for a change in the direction of travel, but I cannot, as yet, go as far as he is asking. If he gives me a chance to list the figures, he will get some satisfaction.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove could be described in this instance, if not outside this debate, as a political anorak. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense. I congratulate him on going to the Library to ask the question that he did, and I am interested to hear that he did not get a satisfactory answer. In 2002,six authorities moved to election by halves—Cheltenham, Fareham, Gosport, Hastings, Nuneaton and Bedworth, and Oxford. Several councils have moved from whole council elections to election by thirds. They include Warrington in 1997, Purbeck in 1999, Castle Point in 2003, North-East Lincolnshire in 2003, and Plymouth in 2003. Councils that have moved from election by thirds to whole council elections include Medway in 1997, Broadland in 2007 and Eastbourne in 2007. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is especially interested in Eastbourne.
	Hon. Members asked about the position in York. For the purposes of the Bill, it is a non-metropolitan district. It is, of course, a unitary authority, so the answer to the question about York is yes. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about halves and metropolitan districts. No metropolitan districts elect on the basis of halves; they have no tradition of that. Seven non-metropolitan districts work on the basis of halves, and could move back to a previous system. Indeed, I have just provided a list of them. All metropolitans could go back to a previous system if they first choose to move to whole council elections. If any of the 81 districts or 19 unitaries that currently elect by thirds or the seven district councils that work on the basis of halves moved to whole council elections, they could move back to thirds or halves, as the case may be.
	Any of the 150 district councils that currently hold whole council elections but previously elected by thirds could move back. Since 1997, three district councils have moved to whole council elections; they could therefore move back. I hope that that is as clear as possible.

David Drew: I declare an interest immediately as a town councillor of some20 years' standing, although I do not intend to talk about all my experiences. I want to put on record my congratulations to the Government on pressing forward with the advancement of parish and town councils. It is a long overdue change and I hope that urban areas in Britain will realise the benefits of truly local councils.
	I want to raise one issue that has always concerned me, which I am still a bit unclear about, and I hope that the Minister will put me straight when she responds. Talking about a principal council implies that there is such a thing, but I am still unclear where the authority lies in three-tier arrangements, where there are parish and town councils and a county and a district council. It is not uncommon to have parish and town councils that are popular with another layer of government but unpopular with the third layer of government. In my county of Gloucestershire, the county council has always been reasonably favourable towards parish and town councils, but that sentiment has not always been shared by all district, city or, indeed, borough councils.
	It is a nice notion that a petition will gain universal support among the hierarchy of those other councils, but I can envisage one layer encouraging a petition only for it to be shot down by another layer. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify exactly what is meant when we talk about a principal council. Where there is conflict, the new clauses seem to clarify the situation, but will there be a clear outcome so that rather than seeing a battle within local government, we get what we all want: proper representation at the most appropriate level, which to my mind is the most local level.

David Heath: I rise to speak to my new clause 63, which deals with the power to issue guarantees in respect of parish councils. I preface my remarks by echoing what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, as it is, indeed, welcome that the Government recognise the value of parish councils. I was lucky enough a little while ago to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of parish councils and the Minister for Local Government replied to it, making clear his personal support for them. It was perhaps one of our more discursive Adjournment debates, lasting several hours, and it provided a very good opportunity to discuss the powers of parish councils.
	My new clause deals with a much narrower issue. I raised the matter on 22 January on Second Reading of what is charmingly abbreviated in  Hansard as the "Local Government in Health" Bill. I hope that we are talking about local government in health rather than otherwise. I raised a point that had been brought to my attention by the Somerset Association of Local Councils about the power to issue a guarantee. The Secretary of State, responding to my intervention said:
	"The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we are actively considering with local parishes. We are seeking to find a way forward, but I shall certainly correspond with him to see whether we can address the problem."—[ Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1151.]
	I was rather pleased with that reply, as it soundedas if there was a possibility of making progress, but I have to say—I am not being overly critical of the Department—that I have not received any such correspondence from the Secretary of State or other Ministers since. According to my interlocutors in local councils, nor are the National Association of Local Councils or the Society of Local Council Clerks aware of having had such discussions since that intervention as we had hoped might take place on this specific issue.
	I looked into the matter in more depth subsequently and noticed that a similar issue was discussed—though not in the same terms—in relation to local government legislation in the other place on 16 July 2003. Lord Hanningfield—not in my party, but a man I well know as leader of the Conservative group on the Association of County Councils when I was the leader of the Liberal Democrat group—raised a broadly similar issue in that debate. He was told in due course by the Minister that the matter was under review, and that active discussions would take place to find a solution. I am not waiting with bated breath for a response from the Government.
	I want briefly to say what new clause 63 is about. There is an anomaly at the moment, in that principal councils—however defined, as the hon. Member for Stroud said—have the power to enter into a guarantee. They may do so under the terms of the Local Government Act 2000 and their power to promote well-being. Clause 57 of the Bill provides parish councils with the power to promote well-being, but restricts that to quality councils, as defined by the Minister, rather than extending it to all parish councils.
	I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not mention his own amendments in this group. I had expected him at least to refer to them, so that I would be able to support them. Those proposals would extend the power to promote well-being to all parish councils, rather than just to the chosen few that have passed the test applied by the Secretary of State. The absence of such a measure creates a difficulty. If a parish council did not have the power to promote well-being, on which it would rely in order to enter into a guarantee, it would become subject to the court judgments made in respect of guarantees made before the 2000 Act, particularly London borough of Sutton  v. Morgan Grenfell,which was based on the Credit Suisse case against Allerdale borough council in 1994. Both cases found that a guarantee given by a local authority was unenforceable in the absence of the power given in the 2000 Act. That is why I have tabled my new clause. Without the power to issue a guarantee, a parish council cannot participate in the joint arrangements that now often involve a company that is limited by guarantee. It cannot be a full participatory member of such arrangements.
	Parish councils take many forms in this country, ranging from the very small ones with small budgets, which are unlikely to enter into such agreements, to the substantial town councils or even city councils. I can think of two examples in Somerset: Frome town council is a substantial council with considerable assets and a reasonable-sized budget, and Wells city council, which has all the trappings of city government but is still a parish council because Wells is a very small city in the context of this country. They are unable to enter into the kind of arrangements that other councils have.
	My new clause would do three things in respect of the ability to issue a guarantee. It would enable a parish council to enter into
	"membership of a company incorporated under the Companies Act",
	in other words, to enter into one of the associations of councils—perhaps a regeneration body, or a citizens advice bureau consortium or other non-governmental organisation consortium—that are now often incorporated as companies limited by guarantee. It would enable it to do that as an equal partner—a floating partner—which it clearly ought to be able to do if it is providing funding to the partnership or another body.
	The new clause would also regularise the position of associations of local authorities, removing the strange position of having an unincorporated body of corporated councils. That anomaly needs to be corrected. The third effect would be to enable parish councils to give the kind of small guarantees that are clearly in the interest of the local area. Examples include the underwriting of a small event such as the village fete, or of a body such as the cricket club or other sporting club within the parish council area. Those are small guarantees involving limited liability for the parish, but at the moment parish councils cannot legally enter into any such guarantee arrangements, because to do so would be ultra vires.
	In anticipating the concerns that the Minister might have about these proposals, I have also incorporated a qualification that the Secretary of State may limit the maximum sum to be guaranteed. Indeed, if the measure were accepted, I envisage different limits for different sizes of council, based either on the council's budget or on a sum per elector in the council area. I share the possible concern of the Minister that there might be occasions on which a small council might hopelessly overreach itself in giving financial guarantees and find itself in significant difficulties. Although I trust parish councils to make appropriate financial decisions, I would have no problem with limiting those guarantees.
	It is now time to correct this anomaly and to ensure that all parish councils—not just those that pass the threshold test that the Minister has in mind—have the power to enter into guarantee arrangements. My colleague in local government in Somerset, Mr. Peter Lacey of the Somerset Association of Local Councils, followed his comments to me on this proposal with a personal observation, which I hope he will not mind my sharing with the House. He said:
	"I do not want to retire before this quite reasonable power is given to my members."
	As I want Peter to be able to retire satisfied that he has done his bit and that I have done mine on behalf of the membership in Somerset, may I ask the Minister to accept my new clause now? If she cannot do that, I do not propose to divide the House on the issue, because it is not the sort of material on which we should be dividing the House, but will she at least give me an assurance that there will be genuine progress on the matter, and that a new clause or an amendment will be tabled in another place to correct this minor yet important anomaly for the parish councils of this country?

Bob Neill: We discussed the question of parish councils in London in some detail in Committee. Without repeating those arguments, I want to stress that the misgivings expressed by the representative body of the London boroughs, London Councils, still remain. We understand the devolutionary sentiment that, in principle, lies behind the measures, but it remains an issue that there does not appear to be any significant demand in London for parish councils. The proposal runs the risk of offending the tradition and turbulence tests set by the Minister for Local Government. If either of those tests were applied, we would not be going down this route in London.
	I have also endeavoured to answer the Pratt's Bottom question, and made a point of visiting that part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). The general consensus there was that the principal concerns about a parish council were whether it would cost any more, and whetherKen Livingstone would have anything to do with it. Such prospects did not elicit an enthusiastic response. I do not think that any evidence has been forthcoming apart from what we heard earlier in regard to a great upsurge in the demand for parish councils.
	My colleagues and I were grateful for the Government's acceptance of the need to ensure that community cohesion was an important consideration in the decision to set up parish councils, especially in the London context, for reasons that we all know and on which I do not need to elaborate. I hope that I can be assured that the petition provisions in the new clauses will not undermine that. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said about the need for safeguards against abuse of the right to petition—such as people keeping them going for a long time—and the need to ensure that petitions are genuinely up to date and representative.
	There are those who might, in London, seek to establish parish councils for reasons that would not advance community cohesion. We think the Government were right to include safeguards for purposes of community cohesion, and some of the safeguards suggested by my hon. Friend in respect of the way in which petitions are conducted may be particularly relevant in that context.

Angela Smith: I thank Members for their contributions. The tone of our discussion has reflected our discussions in Committee on this and other issues. I, too, was surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not speak to his own amendments, but I shall be able to respond to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about his new clause.
	The hon. Member for Poole was worried about the two years that must elapse before a petition can be presented again. He thought that that the Government were being too generous, and that the period was not long enough. Much as I would like to take credit for that generosity, I must ascribe it to the hon. Gentleman's own party. Our proposal reflects a provision in the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, introduced by the last Government, which also allowed a two-year period between petitions. We are applying the provision to community governance reviews in general.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about limits in relation to signatures. Clause 60(3) states that
	"if the area to which the petition relates has fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50% of the electors".
	The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if it took six years to collect the signatures. I suspect that during that time it might be necessary to go back and start again, as many electors might have moved on and might no longer be on the electoral roll. The electoral roll will enable councils to ensure that a petition is valid.
	Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked which would be the principal council. The principal council will be the council that currently makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, whether it is a district council, a metropolitan authority or a London borough. There will be no conflict, because county councils have no governance role and no say in the matter.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the power to promote well-being, which was raised in other amendments. I can tell him that we would have to reject the Conservative proposals to extend that power, because its application could be very broad. We do not seek to place constraints on parishes' expenditure, but we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused. Parish councils vary enormously in size, shape and general nature. The largest is Weston-super-Mare, which is larger than some of the smaller district councils. There will be a basis for eligibility, which we are discussing with the National Association of Local Councils and other stakeholders, including the Local Government Association. We intend to draw on the guidance provided by the quality parish scheme.
	If amendments Nos. 164 to 168 are pressed to a vote, we will reject them for those reasons.
	In new clause 63, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has tried to deal with an issue that I know has concerned him for some time. I have some sympathy with what he said and I think that the issue needs clarification, but I would have to advise the House to reject the amendment if it were put to a vote—although the hon. Gentleman said that he was merely testing the water. I believe that there are defects in the drafting of the new clause. I also believe that we need to understand all the implications of the policy that it recommends, and any risks that it would pose to council tax payers in relation to parish precepts.
	The position is fairly complex. There has been some communication between parish clerks and the Department, but I should like to think further about the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I realise that he was trying to be helpful in subsection (3), which acknowledges that the Secretary of State cannot issue an open guarantee. However, it merely requires councils to "have regard for" an order by the Secretary of State. It would not be possible to pass legislation on that basis.
	We need to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal in some depth, particularly in the light of the proposed extension of the power to promote well-being. I cannot guarantee that our consideration will be completed before the Bill reaches the House of Lords, but he may wish to meet me to discuss the matter. I am rather concerned about Peter Lacey: the hon. Gentleman did not say how old he was. If he is 25, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter will definitely be resolved before he retires.

Angela Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman suggests a meeting. It is important for the issues to be clarified, and I appreciate the tone of his comments as well.
	I did not realise how much I had missed hearing about Pratt's Bottom and Badgers Mount in Committee—but let me turn to amendments Nos. 169 and 170. All Members have made clear their views on the contribution parish councils make to the community. Parish councils enhance the democratic life of communities, and do a power of good in helping to make them better places in which to live and work where there is a demand for them. For many years there have been parish councils all over the country, except in London.
	In the past, parish councils have always required the Secretary of State's consent. The district council, or principal council, considers the matter and advises the Secretary of State, but it invariably ends up on my desk. I think it nonsensical for a Minister who has never been to an area—which may be very small—and may not even know where it is until he or she looks at a map, to decide whether the area should have a parish council. The devolutionary aspect of the Bill is that the Secretary of State's consent is no longer required, but it is difficult to justify not extending those devolved rights to London: we do not think we can deny London the same rights as other areas.
	I understand the concerns raised about such issues as community cohesion, and they have been taken on board. We are already holding discussions with London councils, the Local Government Association and others on the guidance that could be issued to local authorities. Community cohesion is important, andthe whole reason for establishing parish councils is their ability to contribute to it. It was a meeting that I had with Councillor Cockell that produced the Government amendments on community governance review protection periods. We are listening to what is being said to us, and a working group including London councils, the NALC and a number of other bodies is examining the guidance with us.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) (reviews and recommendations of Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (5)(d) substitute—
	"(d) in the case of a district council that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds, or that has resolved to revert to being subject to sucha scheme under Part 2 of the Local Governmentand Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the desirability of securing that an appropriate number of councillors is elected in each ward at each ordinary election of councillors."
	(3) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by halves" if one half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(b) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by thirds" if one third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(c) the number of councillors elected in a ward at an ordinary election of councillors is "appropriate"—
	(i) in the case of a scheme for elections by halves, if it is divisible by 2, and
	(ii) in the case of a scheme for elections by thirds, if it is divisible by 3."'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	No. 133, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, leave out 'specified in subsections (2) to (5)'.
	No. 141, page 24, line 14, leave out subsection (6).
	No. 135, in clause 42, page 25, line 31, at end insert—
	'33ZA Changing governance arrangements
	(1) Any local authority in England may submit a scheme of internal governance appropriate to its circumstances, which shall stand deferred until the next ordinary day of election and may not take effect until the day after that day.
	(2) Where no recognised group has overall control, it shall be competent for the council to implement other arrangements as it may determine.'.
	No. 136, page 26, leave out lines 4 to 10 and insert—'A local authority in England which is operating alternative arrangements may—'.
	No. 137, page 26, leave out lines 13 to 18.
	No. 138, page 26, leave out lines 23 to 25.
	No. 139, page 26, line 28, leave out from 'arrangements' to end of line 29.
	Government amendment No. 12
	No. 142, page 27, leave out line 44.
	No. 140, page 28, line 9, leave out '33A' and insert '33ZA'.
	Government amendment No. 213
	No. 143, page 29, line 19, leave out 'or elected executive'.
	No. 144, page 29, leave out line 23.
	No. 145, page 29, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 30.
	No. 146, page 30, line 3, leave out 'or elected'.
	No. 147, page 30, line 7, leave out from 'executive' to end of line 8.
	No. 148, page 30, line 11, leave out from 'mayor' to end of line 12.
	Government amendments Nos. 214 and 215
	No. 149, page 31, leave out line 19.
	Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217
	No. 150, in clause 43, page 32, line 22, leave out 'an elected executive,'.
	Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14
	No. 151, in page 33, line 1, leave out clause 45.
	Government amendment No. 15
	No. 152, in clause 46, page 34, line 17, leave out from 'mayor' to end of line 18.
	No. 153, in clause 47, page 34, leave out line 29.
	No. 154, page 34, line 30, leave out 'other'.
	Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17
	No. 155, in clause 49, page 35, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
	No. 259, in page 38, line 1, leave out Clause 51.
	Government amendments Nos. 18, 218, 222 to 225, 57 and 226

Alistair Burt: I shall do my best to be brief. New clause 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and a number of other colleagues. The Bill has generally been consensual, but now the rubber will hit the road: we now need to ask the Minister to choose from some of the issues at the heart of the Bill.
	Committee members will remember a champagne moment when the Minister, having been chided for being over-centralist, stood back from the Front Bench and said, "I want to be devolutionary; let them choose." That was a moving moment and, as we have seen in Committee and in the Chamber, he has in limited respects been open to allowing people to choose, but not on executive arrangements. I have three particular concerns to raise, and as I suspect that a couple of other Members want to speak I shall do my best to be brief.
	Local freedom is a key issue. At the heart of our debates on the Bill is an issue that we have discussed intermittently during its passage: whether it is truly devolutionary. The Bill provides an acid test. Local decision making is key to local government. The Government are right that local authorities need to have good, clear, effective and efficient leadership, but it must be local. Our principal complaint with the Bill is that the Government are being prescriptive in having a limited number of models for efficient and effective local government. We simply pose this question: why?
	Do the Government truly trust local government to deliver? The Minister has made much of the progress of local government over the past 10 years, which he claims is due to the targets exerted by Government, but which local government feel owes much to its ability to respond.

Alistair Burt: It is a fortunate council, but the vast majority of councils have had to move from that system. We wish to enable those authorities that want to retain such a system to continue with the alternative arrangements for as long as they wish. That is contrary to the determination of Government; they would sooner or later close down that option.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) was particularly forthright in his contributions in Committee. For example, he said:
	"I do indeed recall the strengths of that system as well as its weaknesses. I am convinced that those strengths can be used to produce a reformed committee structure and a system that would enable the leadership and accountability that we have all said we would wish local government to deliver." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007; c. 457.]
	He is right. Committee members of different parties expressed the same sense. We could not quite understand why the Government were so adamant about closing down the option of a revised committee system.
	In the spirit of the debates that we have had, I urge the Minister to think again when this Bill passes to another place, and to listen to councillors who say that the change from the committee system has disfranchised a number of back-bench councillors who want more to their role than just scrutiny. They want to deliver more. Councillor Phyllis Gershon of Bedfordshire county council—I am delighted to have had the chance to mention Bedfordshire, as it has not been included in the place-naming during the course of the evening—has persistently told me that councils need that option. It should not be forced on them, but it should be an option for them. I ask the Minister: why be so prescriptive?
	My third and last point relates to elected executives. The Government will not allow councils the option of a revised, modernised committee system, which many councillors have mentioned, including the council leaders who came to brief the Committee. Members of the Committee have also spoken about it. However, the Government are prepared to press heavily for elected executives, although we cannot see any evidence than anyone wants them. We pressed the Minister on that in Committee: where are the examples of the public, or the local government fraternity, clamouring for the opportunity to deliver elected executives? The Minister was not able to enlighten us. I therefore humbly suggest that local authorities will not pick up on that option. I cannot see why he should be so keen on that option, but not on a modernised committee system. Several of our amendments deal with an elected executive and, had there been more time, we would probably have pressed an amendment on throwing out the elected executive option. Instead, we will probably press to a vote the general amendment on clause 34 that I mentioned earlier.
	Those are my three points—local freedom is being denied, the committee model is not provided as an option and elected executives are being given the thumbs up by Government when nobody seems to want them. In the spirit of the Bill, which is supposed to be about a listening Government, we have given the Government an opportunity not to be prescriptive. They have not taken similar chances in the past, and that has marred the Bill, but this is an opportunity for a champagne moment. The Minister could say, "We have listened to you, you've got it right, and we'll give it up."

Phil Woolas: This debate has, not surprisingly, repeated some of the points that were made in Committee. I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I acknowledge the limits to devolution that the Bill imposes and I shall try to convince the House of the justification for them. The Government believe that those limits are in the best interests of local government and sustainable communities.
	I am glad that the main point—that the Bill is devolutionary—is broadly accepted. Last week, I cited the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), a previous Minister with responsibility for local government, that change in local government finance was a marathon, not a sprint. Change in the power relationships between central and local government, and local government and its communities, is, if not a marathon, at least a 10 km run. It should certainly not be done in haste, and it is important to build consensus.
	The second principle is that in devolving powers, the Government—and, I suggest, Parliament—have a responsibility to do so to structures and functions that can take responsibility on behalf of the public. The logical consequence of the argument of the devolutionist without any catalyst is that local areas should be free to choose their own form of local government. I think that there are limits and I shall explain what they are.
	Our arguments are not just based on opinion; there is substantial research to back up our points. Indeed, I will shortly publish a paper entitled, "Does Leadership Matter?", including research showing that the two main current models of executive arrangements—directly elected mayors and leaders with cabinets—demonstrate benefits in visibility and accountability and the streamlined focus for decision-making that is needed in modern local government. I do not base my arguments only on that report, of course, because the House has yet to see it. It will be published shortly, but there is further evidence that has already been published.
	It is true—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire put the argument in Committee—that the best leaders can be successful in any system. The argument of some who propose elected mayors often relies on the example of New York in recent years, but they fail to point out that New York went bankrupt under a system of elected mayors. It does not logically follow that the structural system for governance of local authorities necessarily provides strong leaders. Neither does the opposite follow—there could be a complete shambles and strong leaders emerge from that—

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend once again takes the opportunity to promote the case for Stoke-on-Trent, and I commend her for that. Only two local authorities in this country present separate cases. Stoke-on-Trent is the only one to have adopted the elected mayor with the city manager model, and that is different from the one in Doncaster to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred. In addition, the council in Brighton and Hove also has separate arrangements. The Electoral Commission will shortly make an announcement about Stoke-on-Trent, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in that process.
	Of course, there are caveats. Just as other councils face restrictions on what they can and cannot do, if the commission proposed to create a kibbutz for governance in Stoke-on-Trent I would not accept it. However, on a more serious note, the answer to the question poised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) is yes, very definitely. Part of my argument is that Stoke-on-Trent needs that model of governance, but it has its limits.
	I am not making a cause and effect argument. The evidence is that the most likely improvements are made when strong executive arrangements are in place.

Philip Davies: Amendments Nos. 260 to 264, which I also tabled, are consequential to new clause 64, which would abolish the Standards Board for England. From the outset I should declare an interest: my wife has recently been elected to the newly-formed Baildon parish council in the village in which I live in Shipley.
	The Standards Board for England has become a bit of a laughing stock in local government. It is damaging the reputation and standing of local councillorsand local government. Indeed, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:
	"The system has generated a large number of apparently minor, vexatious and politically motivated complaints"—
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The number of complaints to the Standards Board has been rising year on year, from 2,948 in 2002-03 to 3,861 in 2004-05. And yet according to Government figures, in the last year for which figures are available only 3 per cent. of complaints resulted in a verdict that the code had been breached, and many of the breaches were very minor offences, such as not showing sufficient respect to people—as the Mayor of London can testify. This constant rise in the number of allegations clearly shows that either standards are not improving as a result of the Standards Board, or the process is fuelling unfounded and malicious complaints.
	There is very little comeback for complainants when allegations against local councillors are shown to be vexatious and lacking in substance. Worse, the Standards Board proudly states that for data protection reasons it does not publish the names of people who make allegations. That leaves councillors very exposed to politically motivated and unnecessary complaints. Even worse, it takes so long to investigate complaints. Sir Alistair Graham wrote in a report that research by the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that
	"the time taken to complete investigations"
	was
	"an average of 8.5 months",
	with
	"a backlog of over 400 cases".
	That obviously has a negative impact on people who are facing complaints, with the smell hanging over them for so long, and also sometimes on the people who have made a complaint, who feel that nothing ever seems to get done.
	Despite this absolute shambles, the cost to the Government of the Standards Board is forecast to rise to £9.4 million; that is up from £6.2 million in 2003. So not only is it damaging to local government, but it is a very expensive exercise.
	One of the consequences of this situation is that there is a reported shortage of candidates coming forward for places on parish councils, because they do not want to get embroiled in all this nonsense. In my local area we have a shortage of people wishing to stand for the parish council, and I do not think itany coincidence that that has happened since the introduction of the Standards Board.
	At this point I must pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who wrote a tremendous pamphlet on the Standards Board called "A Question of Standards". Given that we have limited time, I urge all hon. Members to read that pamphlet, which exposed the problems of the Standards Board and highlighted some of the cases that it has dealt with.
	In one case, the Standards Board investigated a complaint of misconduct made against a chap who was a long-standing parish councillor and county councillor, and indeed a churchwarden—an upstanding member of the community. Someone in the parish had baked a loaf of bread, and the lady claimed that this upstanding member of the community refused to eat her bread at a Sunday communion, and that that was tantamount to harassment and humiliation. She deemed him unfit for public office, and complained to the Standards Board. While that allegation was minor, the ridiculous investigations that ensue following such complaints are not uncommon. That emphasises the ridiculous situation that we have got ourselves into.
	The chairman of a parish council proposed that a grant of £300 be made to a village club for retired people. Two other councillors declared an interest as club members, and they did not speak or vote on the matter; but because they did not leave the room, an anonymous complaint was made to the Standards Board that they and the two other councillors were in breach of the rules. The resulting investigation lasted nine months, culminating in a full hearing involving15 people, including lawyers, district councillors and a senior enforcement officer. The hearing lasted four hours. All were found guilty and sent on a training course on how to follow the rules. That particular charade cost the taxpayer thousands and thousands of pounds. Such instances are clearly not uncommon, given that only 3 per cent. of complaints lead to people being found in breach—and that was one of the 3 per cent. The whole situation is a shambles.
	There is now more scrutiny of parish councillors and local district councillors than there is of Cabinet Ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for introducing the relevant legislation. If the Standards Board applied to Ministers, it is likely that by now, under the system that he set up for parish and district councillors, he would have been suspended.
	Quite apart from the way in which the Standards Board has operated, there is an important principle at stake—a principle of democracy. When people are elected as councillors, whether district, parish or county councillors, they are there to represent their constituents—the people who elected them. It should be for those people to determine whether they consider that their councillors' actions are appropriate. It should not be for a committee of busybodies dealing with tittle-tattle to decide whether people who have been democratically elected have acted properly or improperly. Such matters should be decided by the electorate at the next election.
	The Standards Board is a shambles. It is incredibly damaging to the reputation of local councillors and local government generally. It serves no particular fit purpose. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division, to test the will of the House. I think that Members of Parliament should stand up for local councillors, who work incredibly hard on behalf of their electorate and do not deserve to have the smell of this self-serving Standards Board constantly hanging over them.

Andrew Dismore: I have some sympathy with the position taken by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), having seen the cases involving Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg of Westminster city council and the London Mayor, which there is no time to go into.
	However, I shall focus on amendments Nos. 250 to 252, which, in effect, have been tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, and give effect to the recommendations of our 11th report and our subsequent monitoring report. In our view, there is no doubt that that the Bill's proposed extension of the scope of the conduct of local authority members that may be covered by code of conduct engages members' right to respect for their private life under article 8, and their right to freedom of expression under article 10, of the European convention on human rights. We believe that there is a real risk that those two articles will be breached.
	In January 2005 the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered the question in its 10th report. It recommended that the model code should make a clear distinction between private and official conduct, and that private conduct wholly unrelated to an individual's official capacity should fall outside the ethical framework. The most obvious example of that was the case of the Mayor of London, in which the High Court allowed the Mayor's appeal on the basis that the code of conduct did not apply because the Mayor was not acting in his official capacity and the code did not extend to regulating the Mayor's private conduct. So far, so good. However, it appears that the Government want to overturn the decision of the High Court through the proposals in the Bill.
	In proceedings in the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for Local Government confirmed that the policy objective was to bring within the code instances where members who were acting outside their official duties received a criminal conviction. He said:
	"We are trying to say that the code of conduct should not cover a councillor's private life, with the caveat that if a criminal conviction was involved, that should be taken on board by the standards committee."
	We welcome that clarification, but that is not what the Bill actually says. As it stands, the Bill provides for a power which, on the face of it, is capable of being exercised so as to make the code of conduct apply to any private conduct of a member. In our view, that is highly likely to give rise to breaches of members' rights to privacy and freedom of expression under articles 8 and 10. There is nothing in the Bill to confine the power along the lines that the Minister suggested.
	Indeed, the hon. Gentleman told the Public Bill Committee that hon. Members might
	"have the impression...that we are trying to do the opposite of what we are really trying to do",
	and later added that
	"the law has to be widened and clarified so that the code can be narrowed." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2007;c. 419-21.]
	The members of the Joint Committee simply do not understand that rather puzzling explanation, and we see no reason why the Bill should not expressly state the exact extent to which the code should apply to private conduct by members—for example, by providing that the only private conduct to which the code applies is conduct that has resulted in a criminal conviction.
	The second problem that remains is that the Government's intention appears to be that any criminal conviction, however minor, should be capable of counting as conduct that could reasonably be regarded as bringing a member's office into disrepute. That would mean that speeding tickets or other regulatory offences of a minor nature would be within the scope of the code of conduct. We agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that only private conduct resulting in a criminal conviction relevant to the member's official duties should be within the scope of the code of conduct.
	We corresponded with the Minister and we were not satisfied with the outcome of that correspondence. As the Bill neither states the basic principle that private conduct should not be covered by the code, nor defines an exception to that principle, such as cases in which private conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction, we remain of the view that we should press our amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point in the time that he has to reply. If he does not, amendments of a similar nature will inevitably be tabled in the other place, and they will almost certainly be made.
	We are trying to give effect to the Government's stated policy, which we think is a reasonable approach. If it were a question of restricting the code to relevant criminal convictions of a sufficiently serious nature to impinge on someone's ability to serve as a councillor, we would say, "So be it," but unfortunately the Government amendments simply do not do that. Our Committee wants legislation that says what it should say; it should confine itself to the narrow requirements of policy, which are acceptable, and not go beyond them, as the legislation does, and impinge on articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who moved a new clause that would abolish the Standards Board. I certainly do not think that we should go that far—there must be a minimum degree of standards—but there is the question of whether what is proposed in the Bill is discriminatory and contrary to article 14. For some reason, we have singled out local government councillors for a regime that is much more rigorous than any that applies to anyone else in public life, including ourselves. After last Friday's debate, we need to be a little more aware of the fact that we should treat people fairly and equally.
	I hope that the Minister will take my Committee's concerns on board. We are dealing with significant issues of human rights, and it could be argued that the Standards Board has itself been brought into disrepute by some of the cases that it has taken up. If we are serious about maintaining standards in public life, and particularly in local government, we have to be realistic about what we do and do not expect from our councillors.

Andrew Stunell: I want to draw the House's attention to amendment No. 134, in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which addresses a completely different issue: the capacity of local councillors to stick up for their constituents when planning issues are being discussed and voted on by councils. It deals with the difficult doctrine of predisposition and bias, which we spent some time on in Committee.
	Bearing in mind what was said in Committee, and the sympathetic words that we have heard from the Minister in respect of matters other than planning, I hope that he now feels able to move forward on the planning issue. I particularly draw his attention to what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said yesterday about the importance, under the new planning White Paper, of more community engagement and involvement with planning at the local level. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that we would be preposterously incapable of delivering that if, every time that there was such engagement, all local representatives were excluded from participating.
	I now want to give the Minister the opportunity to say something about that, and the other issues. We shall support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Some progress has been made, but more needs to be made.

Phil Woolas: In the brief time available to me, I shall attempt to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is clearly a Yorkshireman. He stated what he thinks, and he thinks we should get rid of the Standards Board lock, stock and barrel. He is consistent, although I wish he would get off the fence on some of the other issues. We do not agree with that view, although we agree with part of his analysis. On some occasions the processes have unintentionally damaged the reputation of local government, but we think the return to a more locally based system is right.
	There are examples of frivolous complaints, which we have tried to address. Frivolous complaints are made against the police, and the hon. Gentleman would not want us to abolish the police force, and similarly the court and the police court. We have a straightforward disagreement. I respect that. We have put in place measures that will enhance the reputation of local government and provide for a sensible code.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raises a technically more difficult issue. I understand exactly what he and his Committee are trying to do, but my preference is that the stricture should not be written into the Bill. The code that will apply will meet his intention. I should like more time to consider the matter. The explanation that I gave the Committee was that the code refers to criminal convictions. There was a debate about that definition. The code and the practice will make that clear.
	We have agreed with the Standards Board that during this year we and the board will monitor and review the introduction and working of the new code, and we intend to review it afterwards. I argued in Committee that we need to clarify the legislation in order to comply with the judge's ruling, but it is the code that enforces the ethical regime. My hon. Friend's intention is met by the new code. He shakes his head. We have a disagreement. I undertake to look at the point. He is probably right to say that it will come up in the other place.
	As I have failed to satisfy my hon. Friend, let me try to satisfy the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on the point that he consistently makes about planning. The code of conduct does not prevent a member from having a predisposition towards a particular outcome for a planning proposal. However, where, for example, a councillor is strongly identified in favour of or against a particular planning proposal, that might amount to predetermination, were that member to participate in the decision on that application. As I have said, it is planning case law, not the code, that deals with predetermination. Where predetermination occurs, members have made up their minds about a matter and are not prepared to listen to the arguments raised at the council meeting.
	It is important for natural justice that people should get a fair hearing when a planning application is made. As I indicated in Committee, we have been considering the issue of predetermination so that concern to guard against predetermination does not fetter a councillor's capacity to speak up for the local electorate. Wehave discussed the matter with the Standards Board, and I can tell the House that at its meeting last week, the board agreed to issue, after consultation, a commentary on predetermination to help members and monitoring officers to understand the situation.
	In other words, we believe that it is the applicationof case law in much too restrictive a manner by monitoring officers that has led to a culture in which councillors have been unable to speak out. It is that case law, not the code of conduct, that is fettering elected councillors. Again, I agree with the intention. It is clearly right that local councillors should be able to speak up for their constituents, but it is also right that people before a planning committee should have a fair hearing. I believe that we can square that circle.

Amendments made: No. 208, page 20, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 209, page 20, line 12, leave out 'subsection (2)(c)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
	No. 258, page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 211, page 20, line 23, leave out '85(2)' andinsert '85'.
	No. 212, page 20, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 89, page 20, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5) If—
	(a) a local authority makes a request under section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, and
	(b) immediately before subsection (1)(a) above comes into force in relation to that authority, the request has not yet been dealt with,
	the repeal of section 7(4) to (6) of the 1972 Act does not apply to the request unless, and until, it is dealt with.
	(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a request under section 7(4) of the 1972 Act is "dealt with" in either of these cases—
	(a) if the Secretary of State notifies the local authority that he has decided not to make an order under section 7(6) of the 1972 Act in response to the request;
	(b) if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 7(6) in response to the request.
	(7) The repeal of section 7(6) or 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of section 86(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 (so far as it relates to England) does not affect any order made under that provision before its repeal.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendments made: No. 16, page 34, leave outlines 32 and 33 and insert—
	'(1) Section 41 of the Local Government Act 2000 (regulations about time of elections etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) The provision of section 41 becomes subsection (1) of that section.
	(3) In subsection (1)—'.
	No. 17, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
	'(4) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(2) Regulations under this section may not provide for an elected executive by-election to be held if the number of remaining members of the executive is the same as, or greater than, the minimum effective membership.
	(3) But subsection (2) does not prevent the regulations from providing that, in those circumstances, an elected executive by-election may be held at the direction of the elected leader of the executive.
	(4) In this section—
	"elected executive by-election" means—
	(a) an election to fill a vacancy in the membership of an elected executive, or(b) an election of a new elected executive because of vacancies in the membership of the current executive;
	but it does not include any election to be held because of a vacancy in the office of elected leader;
	"minimum effective membership" means, in relation to a local authority—
	(a) 3 members of the authority's executive, or(b) if the authority's executive arrangements include provision under paragraph 2A(2B) or (2G) of Schedule 1, the number of members of the authority's executive specified in that provision.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendment made: No. 19, page 53, line 8, leaveout 'Chapter 1 of Part 1 (see section 23)' and insert 'section 16'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendments made: No. 244, page 53, leave outline 26 and insert—
	'(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
	(2) The following expressions have the meanings given—'.
	No. 245, page 54, line 4, at end insert—
	'"petition area" means the area to which a community governance petition relates;'.
	No. 246, page 54, line 10, at end insert—
	'"relevant two-year period", in relation to receipt of a community governance petition, means the period of two years ending with the day on which the petition is received by the principal council;
	"specified recommendations", in relation to a community governance petition, means the recommendations—
	(g) specified in the petition, or(h) treated by section 61 as included in the recommendations specified in the petition;'.
	No. 247, page 54, line 11, at end insert—
	'(3) A principal council "begins" a community governance review when the council publishes the terms of reference of the review.
	(4) A principal council "concludes" a community governance review when the council publishes the notice required by 72(2A).
	(5) A principal council is "in the course of undertaking" a community governance review in the period between—
	(a) beginning the review, and
	(b) concluding the review.
	(6) The terms of reference of a community governance review "allow for a community governance petition to be considered" if the terms of reference of the review are such that—
	(a) the area under review includes the whole of the petition area; and
	(b) the recommendations to be considered by thereview include all of the petition's specified recommendations.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendments made: No. 61, page 99, line 36, leave out 'section 57B' and insert 'sections 57B and 57BA'.
	No. 62, page 100, line 18, at end insert—
	'57BA Information to be given to subject of allegation
	(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply where a person makes an allegation under section 57A to a standards committee.
	(2) The standards committee must take reasonable steps to give a written summary of the allegation to the person who is the subject of the allegation ("P"); but this is subject to regulations under subsection (7).
	(3) If the standards committee makes a decision undersection 57A(2) that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation, it must take reasonable steps to give notice in writing to P of the decision and the reasons for the decision.
	(4) If the standards committee receives a request under section 57B in relation to the allegation, it must take reasonable steps to give notice in writing to P of the request.
	(5) The reference in subsection (3) to a decision undersection 57A(2) includes a decision under section 57A(2) as applied by section 57B(4) or 58(3).
	(6) Subsections (2) to (4) are subject to any direction under section 57C.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) provide that in circumstances prescribed by the regulations the duty in subsection (2) does not arise at the time the standards committee receives the allegation, and
	(b) make provision, in relation to cases where that duty has been prevented by the regulations from arising at that time, as to when it does arise.'.
	No. 63, page 100, line 23, leave out 'and 57B(4)' and insert ', 57B(4) and 57BA(2) to (4)'.
	No. 64, page 100, line 35, leave out 'that date' and insert 'then'.
	No. 65, page 100, line 41, leave out 'that date' and insert 'then'.
	No. 66, page 101, line 39, leave out ', to the person who made the allegation,'.
	No. 67, page 101, line 40, at end insert 'to—
	(a) the person who made the allegation, and
	(b) the person who was the subject of the allegation.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendments made: No. 219, page 135, line 20, at end insert—
	'(1A) Any order made by the Electoral Commission under this Act must be made by statutory instrument'.
	No. 114, page 135, line 21, after '168' insert
	', (Entities controlled etc by local authorities), (Definitions of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales)'.
	No. 115, page 135, line 23, leave out 'undersection 168,' and insert
	'made by the Welsh Ministers under section 168, (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) or (Definitions of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales),'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Amendments made: No. 222, page 137, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1) This section and sections 189, 191, 193 and 195 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.
	No. 223, page 137, line 17, leave out 'so far as not brought into force by subsection (1)'.
	No. 224, page 137, line 18, leave out 'so far as not brought into force by subsection (1)'.
	No. 56, page 137, line 19, leave out 'exceptsection 91' and insert
	'(except section 91), Part 4A of Schedule 15 and section 190 so far as relating to that Part of that Schedule'.
	No. 122, page 137, line 22, at end insert—
	'sections (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) to (Definition of certain terms for purposes ofother enactments: Wales) and (consequential amendments)(3) and (4);'.
	No. 225, page 137, line 37, leave outsubsection (6).— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
	1 (1) Section 9 of the Local Government and HousingAct 1989 (assistants for political groups) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (11), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "appropriate year", for "one in relation to which provision for whole council elections has been made by virtue of section 7(4)(a) or 26(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972" substitute "subject to whole council elections by virtue of Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

1 Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (Commission for Local Administration in England) is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
	2 In section 23(12) (three-yearly reviews by the Commission), for "complaints" substitute "matters".
	3 (1) Section 26 (matters subject to investigation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6), for "person aggrieved" (in each place) substitute "person affected".
	(3) In subsection (6A), for "any action taken in connection with the discharge by an authority" substitute "any action taken by or on behalf of an authority in the exercise".
	(4) In subsection (7), in paragraphs (aa), (a) (in both places) and (ba), for "complaint" substitute "matter".
	(5) Omit subsection (10) (Local Commissioners' discretion to investigate matters etc).
	(6) In subsection (11)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "person aggrieved" substitute "person affected";
	(b) omit paragraph (b).
	(7) Omit subsections (12) and (13) (restrictions on investigating matters arising before specified dates).
	4 (1) Section 28 (payments to complainants and persons assisting with investigations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint" substitute "investigate a matter under this Part of this Act";
	(b) after "who is alleged in the complaint" insert "(ifany), or who otherwise appears to the Local Commissioner,";
	(c) for "the action complained of" substitute "the action which would be the subject of the investigation";
	(d) for "any allegations contained in the complaint" substitute "the matter".
	(3) In subsection (2), for "such investigation" substitute "investigation under this Part of this Act".
	(4) In subsection (3)—
	(a) after "the complaint" insert "(if any)";
	(b) omit the words following paragraph (b).
	(5) In subsection (4)—
	(a) after "the authority concerned" insert "or any other person";
	(b) for "that authority" substitute "the authority concerned or any other person".
	5 (1) Section 29 (further provisions about investigations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6), omit "with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service".
	(3) In subsection (8), for "or any officer of the Commission assisting in the performance" substitute "or any person discharging or assisting in the discharge".
	6 (1) Section 31A (consideration of adverse reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) to (2A) substitute—
	"(1A) Where a further report of a Local Commissioner under section 31(2A) is considered by a person other than the appropriate listed authority and it is proposed that—
	(a) no action should be taken on the report, or
	(b) the action recommended in the report should not be taken,
	consideration of the report shall be referred to that authority.
	(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
	(a) "listed authority" means an authority mentioned in section 25(1) or specified in an order under subsection 25(2) (but does not include a person mentioned in section 25(4) to (5)), and
	(b) a listed authority is the appropriate listed authority in relation to a further report if the report relates to the authority (or to any person with which the authority is connected for the purposes of this Part of this Act by virtue of section 25(4) to (5)).
	(1C) Subsection (1A) has effect subject to subsection (3)."
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "subsections (1) and (2)" substitute "subsection (1A)";
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "the said section 101, or" substitute "section 101 of the Local GovernmentAct 1972,";
	(c) for paragraph (b) substitute—
	"(b) a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, or
	(c) an admission appeal panel or exclusion appeal panel mentioned in section 25(5)(c) or (e),
	and the report is considered by that committee or panel."
	(4) In subsection (5), for the words from the beginning to "shall vote" substitute "No individual shall decide or vote".
	(5) Omit subsections (5A) and (6).
	(6) In subsection (7)—
	(a) omit "Where the authority concerned is the Greater London Authority,";
	(b) for "the Authority" substitute "the Greater London Authority";
	(c) for "the authority concerned (other than references to a member of the authority concerned)" substitute "an authority".
	7 (1) Section 32 (law of defamation and disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a), for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(3) In subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner";
	(b) after "a complainant" insert ", or with the person affected in relation to a matter,".
	(4) In subsection (1)(d), for "section 24" substitute"section 23A".
	(5) After subsection (1)(e) insert—
	"(f) the publication of any matter by inclusion in a report, statement or summary published or supplied under section 31B."
	(6) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner";
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "report to be made under section 30 or 31" insert "report, statement or summary under section 30, 31 or 31B";
	(c) in paragraph (b), for "an officer of the Commission" substitute "a person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of Local Commissioner";
	(d) in the words following paragraph (c), for "the officers of the Commission" substitute "persons discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(7) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "any of the authorities mentioned in section 25(1) above" substitute "any of the authorities to which this Part of this Act applies";
	(b) for "any member of the staff of the Commission who is allocated to assist him" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(8) After subsection (3A) (inserted by section 138) insert—
	"(3B) Section 25(4), (4A) and (5) do not apply for the purpose of subsection (3)."
	8 (1) Section 33 (consultation with other Commissioners etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "the complaint relates partly to" substitute "the matters which are the subject of the investigation include";
	(b) for "about the complaint and" substitute "about the matter and, where a complaint was made about the matter, he shall".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "a complaint under this Part of this Act" substitute "a matter under investigation under this Part of this Act";
	(b) for "any matter relating to the complaint" substitute "anything relating to the matter";
	(c) in paragraph (a), for "complaint" substitute "matter".
	9 In section 34(1) (interpretation of Part)—
	(a) in the definition of "member", omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
	(b) for the definition of "person aggrieved" substitute—
	""person affected"—
	(c) in relation to a matter which is the subject of a complaint made or to be made under this Part of this Act, means the member of the public who claims or is alleged to have sustained injustice in consequence of the matter, and(d) in relation to a matter coming to the attention of a Local Commissioner to which section 26D applies, means the member of the public who the Local Commissioner considers has, or may have, sustained injustice in consequence of the matter;".
	10 (1) Schedule 4 (the Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 3 (remuneration etc of Commissioners and their officers)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit ", with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service,";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2) omit ", with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service,".
	(3) In paragraph 4—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for "complaints" substitute "matters";
	(b) omit sub-paragraph (5).
	11 In Schedule 5 (matters not subject to investigation), in paragraphs 2, 6, 7 and 8, after "taken by" insert "or on behalf of".

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
	12 (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 5 (reports of monitoring officer), insubsection (2)(b), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	(3) In section 5A (reports of monitoring officer - local authorities operating executive arrangements), in subsection (3)(b), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	 Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
	13 In section 73(6) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (monitoring officer), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	 Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)
	14 (1) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 62 (further provisions about investigations by ethical standards officers), in subsection (7)(b) for "by any members or officers of the Commission for Local Administration in England" substitute "obtained in connection with investigations under Part 3 of that Act (Commission for Local Administration in England)".
	(3) In section 67(2) (consultation by Local Commissioners with ethical standards officers)—
	(a) for "the complaint relates" substitute "the matters which are the subject of the investigation relate";
	(b) after "about the investigation and" insert ", where a complaint was made about the matter, he may".
	 Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43)
	15 In section 114 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (complaints about social services), in subsection (5)(a) for "(and to be treated as if it had been duly made under section 26 of that Act)" substitute "(and for the complaint to be treated as satisfying sections 26A and 26B of that Act)".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64)
	1 (1) Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (interpretation etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after "United Kingdom)" insert "and any entity which is under the control of a local authority or jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority";
	(b) omit the words from "and companies" to "local authorities".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
	"an entity under the control of a local authority", and
	"an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority",
	have the meanings given for the purposes of that subsection by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007."
	 Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
	2 (1) Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 (disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (aa) substitute—
	"(aa) holds any employment in an entity which is under the control of the local authority; or".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) In subsection (1)(aa) as it applies in relation to a local authority in England, the reference to an entity under the control of the local authority has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(3B) In subsection (1)(aa) as it applies in relation to a local authority in Wales, that reference has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
	3 (1) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 98 (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State)—
	(a) in subsection (8)(d)—
	(i) for "bodies" substitute "authorities";
	(ii) for the words from "a company" to the end substitute "an entity which is under the control of that body, subject to its influence or jointly controlled by it and one or more other bodies";
	(b) in subsection (8A) for "bodies" substitute "authorities".
	(3) In section 100 (interpretation etc of Part 10)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words from "a company" to "interests)" substitute "an entity which is under the control of that body, subject to its influence or jointly controlled by it and one or more other bodies";
	(b) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1ZA) In relation to a body in England to whom this Part of this Act applies, references in this Part to—
	(a) an entity under the control of the body,
	(b) an entity subject to the influence of the body, and
	(c) an entity jointly controlled by the body and one or more other bodies,
	have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(1ZB) In relation to a body in Wales to whom this Part of this Act applies, those references have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
	4 (1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (National Park authorities) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words from "a company" to the end substitute "an entity which is under the control of that authority".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(4A) In sub-paragraph (2) as it applies in relation to a National Park authority in England, the reference to an entity under the control of the authority has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(4B) In sub-paragraph (2) as it applies in relation to a National Park authority in Wales, that reference has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26)
	5 (1) The Local Government Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 18 (local authority companies etc)—
	(a) in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (a) insert "and", and for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
	"(b) an entity which is, or the trustees of a trust which is—
	(i) under the control of a local authority or Passenger Transport Executive,
	(ii) subject to the influence of such an authority or Executive, or
	(iii) jointly controlled by bodies that include such an authority or Executive."
	(b) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) The references in subsection (2)(b) to—
	(a) "an entity under the control of" and "a trust under the control of" a local authority or Passenger Transport Executive,
	(b) "an entity subject to the influence of" and "a trust subject to the influence of" such an authority or Executive, and
	(c) "an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include" and "a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include" such an authority or Executive,
	have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007."
	(3) The provision in section 24 of that Act (Wales) is renumbered subsection (1) of that section, and after that provision there is inserted—
	"(2) In its application to Wales, section 18 has effect as if—
	(a) any reference to a Passenger Transport Executive were omitted, and
	(b) for the reference in subsection (2A) to section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 there were substituted a reference to section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	(4) In section 95 (power to trade in function-related activities through a company)—
	(a) in subsection (4) omit the words from "within" to the end;
	(b) for subsections (5) and (6) substitute—
	"(5) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (regulation of entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include provision applying any of the provisions of that order, with or without modifications—
	(a) to a company through which a relevant authority which is not a local authority for the purposes of that section exercises or proposes to exercise powers conferred by order under this section; or
	(b) to such a relevant authority, or members or officers of such a relevant authority, in relation to such a company.
	(6) Any requirement or prohibition imposed on or in relation to a company by virtue of subsection (5) must relate to the doing for a commercial purpose of the thing to which the order under this section relates.";
	(c) in subsection (7), before the definition of "ordinary functions" insert—
	""company" means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006; or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969,".
	(5) In subsection 96(5) (definition of "company") for the words from "Part 5" to the end substitute "section 95".
	(6) In section 100(2)(a) (exercise of powers by referenceto authorities' performance categories), for the words from "section 70" to the end substitute "section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007".
	 Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23)
	6 (1) Section 48 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (permitted methods of publishing information) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(a) for "a local authority company" substitute "an entity under the control of a local authority".
	(3) For subsections (5) and (6) substitute—
	"(5) In subsection (3) "an entity under the control of a local authority" has the meaning given for the purposes of that subsection by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(6) But the Welsh Ministers may direct that an entity, or entities of a particular description, are to be treated as not being under the control of a local authority for the purposes of subsection (3).
	(7) A direction under subsection (6) may be given so as to apply—
	(a) for a period specified in the direction; or
	(b) subject to conditions so specified.
	(8) A direction under subsection (6) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction under that subsection.
	(9) In subsection (6) "entity" means any entity, whether or not a legal person."'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment made: No. 57, page 145, leave outlines 22 to 24 and insert—
	'(2) The executive arrangements may include provision specifying the number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified membership").
	(2A) The specified membership—
	(a) must be 3 or more, but
	(b) must not be greater than the maximum number of members of the elected executive (as determined under section 11(8) or regulations under section 11(9)).
	(2B) If the specified membership is 4 or more, the executive arrangements may also include provision specifying the number of members of the executive that is to be the minimum effective membership for the purposes of section 41(2).
	(2C) The minimum effective membership that is specified—
	(a) must be the same as, or smaller than, the specified membership, but
	(b) must not be smaller than 3.
	(2D) The executive arrangements may include provision specifying—
	(a) the minimum number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified minimum membership"), and
	(b) the maximum number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified maximum membership").
	(2E) The specified minimum membership must be 3 or more.
	(2F) The specified maximum membership must not be more than the maximum number of members of the elected executive (as determined under section 11(8) or regulations undersection 11(9)).
	(2G) If the specified minimum membership is 4 or more, the executive arrangements may also include provision specifying the number of members of the executive that is to be the minimum effective membership for the purposes of section 41(2).
	(2H) The minimum effective membership that is specified—
	(a) must be the same as, or smaller than, the specified minimum membership, but
	(b) must not be smaller than 3.
	(2I) The executive arrangements may not include provision under sub-paragraph (2) and provision undersub-paragraph (2D).'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I start by reassuring the House that the significant number of Government amendments that have just been passed came about not as a result of sloppy workmanship on our part, but because of the desirability of accommodating many points made on both sides in Committee. Secondly, I would like to thank Members for their contribution to the scrutiny and improvement of the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
	It is worth reminding the House that this was the first Bill to pass through the evidence-taking process and I should like to put on record—I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee—our thanks to the witnesses who provided both written and oral evidence. It turned out to be very helpful in informing the Committee's deliberations and was often referred to in debate. As I said, changes to the Bill have largely been the result of the good work done in Committee. I hope that we can move forward in that spirit.
	I should also like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), for her work on the Bill and for her support, which has been invaluable. I have learned a lot about Essex, particularly about women from Essex—but I shall go no further on that point. Suffice it to say that champagne moments have a different meaning in different parts of the country— [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): at least someone is keeping up and has a good sense of humour. Perhaps he and I have a peculiar sense of humour, but I shall move on swiftly.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
	"The Bill implements the majority of the proposals set out in 'Strong and prosperous communities', the local government White Paper, which was published in October."—[ Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1144.]
	That White Paper was the result of exhaustive consultation, which was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and his team back in 2004, and then taken forward in informing the report of Sir Michael Lyons as well as our debates on the Bill.
	We believe that the Bill is radical and devolutionary, setting out a new statutory framework for local councils and a new relationship between central and local government—not just between my Department and councils, but between Whitehall and councils. It sets out a new relationship between local government and its partner organisations at the local level, many of which are local agents of Government Departments.
	Crucially, the Bill sets out a new relationship between local government and its partners and the people who live in the relevant local area. It allows local authorities and their partners to work together in delivering the full range of local services in an area. As such, it represents a new, modern take on public service reform. It joins up government at the local level, which is where the citizen requires it to be joined up. It takes forward key themes of joining up local services and giving local authorities greater freedom to develop their own solutions. I believe that this is the most devolutionary local government reform Bill for many years.
	Also crucially, the Bill is not just about local government reform. It places two new measures on the statute book. The first is the duty on local government agencies and public sector organisations to co-operate in reaching local area agreement targets with the council. The second, achieved through clause 108, is an insistence on devolution—or what has been described as double devolution—in respect of the duty to inform, to involve and to consult. In my view, those two statutory measures change the structure and, even more importantly, the climate of local government, which has been welcomed. I also believe that that is why the Bill has, on the whole, commanded support across the political parties in the Local Government Association.
	The Bill says to local councils, "Don't ask Whitehall's permission to get on and do things. Get on and do it, unless Parliament and the Government say otherwise." That will require a culture change in the leadership and management of local authorities, as well as structural and financial changes. I could point to a number of devolutionary measures in the Bill that we have debated. Of course, these measures need to be considered in the context of the debate on the Sustainable Communities Bill that is taking place in time provided for private Members' Bills, and in the context of the planning White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced yesterday.
	This Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill introduces reforms on the scrutiny of policy and the delivery of health services. Crucially, it is a Bill about the involvement of local government in health. It reverses the trend of 50 to 60 years of health services and local government moving away from each other, and brings them closer together. That is what the patient, the resident, the citizen—call them what you will—requires. The public do not differentiate between structures and organisations; they want services that deliver. There is strong evidence that the Bill is radical, devolutionary and pro-local government, and that it puts trust in local government and requires central Government to change their attitude. It is important to emphasise that the new performance regime for local authorities that will replace the comprehensive performance assessment will involve a regime of targets that are set locally. Different targets will be applied in different areas to reflect the realities of the differences in geography, economics and culture in those areas.
	I look forward to the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, and to taking forward these measures and the other proposals in the White Paper to change the balance of power in this country from the centre to local areas in a way that I believe is irreversible.

Peter Soulsby: Listening to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), it is hard to recall now how much scepticism the Opposition expressed about the Bill when it first came beforethe House. I recall Opposition Members failing tofind anything of merit in it. It is interesting and encouraging to hear the difference in tone of the hon. Gentleman's contribution this evening.
	As the Bill progressed, particularly in Committee, many of the sceptics about the Bill—Opposition Members who were sceptical perhaps expressed their scepticism more clearly than the Labour sceptics—were converted to its considerable merits. As the Minister has said, it is undoubtedly devolutionary in its intent. It was indeed very encouraging to hear the support that was given to many of the proposals in the Bill from those who gave evidence to the Committee, and I join others in saying how useful those sittings were. Such evidence sessions are an important innovation.
	For those of us who have been involved in local government over many years, the Bill does not yet go far enough. Of course, the major issue of restoring to local government the power that comes with greater control over raising its own revenue is yet to come, but—to use the mantra that the Minister has used on several occasions—such reform is a marathon, not a sprint. We look forward to some of the later stages in progress towards that goal of a continued increase in the powers and responsibilities of local government and the local democratic institutions of which it is a part.
	I welcome the elements in the Bill that strengthen the scrutiny role of front-line councillors, as we now call those who used to be back benchers. The Bill will do much to give them a genuine role of scrutiny and enable them to look not only at the work that their local authority is doing, but to have a wider scrutiny role over what is happening across the whole of their community and all the bodies that affect the lives of those who elected them. I also welcome the elements of the Bill that seek to empower local government to provide wider community leadership beyond just the services that it provides, and I welcome the lifting and rationalisation of the heavy burdens of targets and inspections that local government of all political persuasion has suffered in recent years.
	The Bill has to be seen in the context of the work that the Government are doing to seek to provide incentives for and remove barriers to serving on local councils. If the Bill is to achieve its full effect it needs councillors from all parties of sufficient calibre to enable them to serve their local communities and take full advantage of what is being given to them as part of this Bill. I also wish to set in a wider context the work that the Government are doing with local authorities to develop multi-area agreements, especially the work—of vital importance for cities such as mine, which have very constrained boundaries—to enable them towork across boundaries to develop city development companies. Such companies will be able to help solve the problems of tightly constrained urban areas in a wider context.
	The Bill, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge, is an important step forward. It is only one step forward, but it is especially welcome that it has been brought forward with such a high level of engagement with local government itself in the shaping of the legislation. I look forward to more steps being taken in the marathon that lies ahead.

Andrew Stunell: I start by offering my thanks to the ministerial team, who were as obliging as they could be within the constraints they set themselves. They have at all times been as helpful and courteous as they could be.
	We all found the evidence session interesting and stimulating. There are lessons to be learned about the organisation of such sessions, but that point leads me to offer thanks to a part of the organisation that is often not mentioned—the Government Whip for the Committee. From that point onwards, he did his best to be helpful and allow the Opposition the chances we needed to test the Government and set out our case, in Committee and on Report. My colleagues who supported me on the Bill also did stout work, and I thank them.
	The broader context of the Bill is that it was preceded by a White Paper and a lot of talk by Secretaries of State about direction and speed of travel that has now been mostly forgotten. We believe that the Bill that was published was a wasted opportunity. It was not well timed, it being out of sync with the Lyons report. As a result, it does not deal with some very fundamental questions of finance and structure.
	It has been claimed that the tone of Opposition criticism has moderated during the Bill's passage through the House, but any Bill that is 192 pages long will contain at least one bit that is acceptable to us, and so it has proved. I have never denied that it has some good bits, but it does not provide the fundamental devolution of power, financial resources or freedom to organise that we consider essential. On the contrary, the Bill seems to offer a narrower frame in those respects than what we had previously.
	We have gained some important new jargon, of course. We no longer talk about back-bench councillors, but about front-line councillors. They are the ones who get sent over the top and shot first, and many of them think that life might be a bit cosier on the back benches. The phrase "place shaping" suggests a degree of proactivity on the part of councils, even though—despite what Ministers have said at various stages—the capacity to place-shape will still be dramatically confined, controlled and limited.
	In some areas, such as the executive arrangements, the Bill represents an increase in centralised grasp. The Minister heard Opposition Members go on about that frequently in Committee, and he knows that he has taken away one of the available models. I accept that he might argue that it was non-functional, but he has put in place another model that looks likely to be demonstrably non-functional and that only Stockton appears to want. It will not give local authorities the freedom to organise themselves as they think best and as would suit them best.
	The same point can be made about the changes to the monitoring of health. I suppose that I should declare a long lapsed interest, as some 20 years ago I was a member of a community health council. I know that many Labour Members regret the loss of community health councils; the establishment of patient forums was very much a second-best alternative. They were introduced only because of the pressure that the Government experienced in their struggle to get community health councils out of the way. Now, patient forums are being taken away too, and we have taken a step further backwards. There are clear signs of centralisation lurking behind the face of devolution about which the Minister has spoken.
	The Bill does have some good bits, however, and we have made favourable comments about some of them. The reform of the Standards Board, the enhanced role for local members and the greater freedom to make electoral arrangements that suit a local community are all to be welcomed. If the local area partnerships and the multi-area agreements can develop, they could represent two very useful steps forward.
	However, there is still plenty more to be done. I said earlier on Report that we had got the Minister out of the front door on his journey, but we still have not got him far enough down the path and along the street in the direction that we believe he should take. As a result, we shall not support the Bill on Third Reading.

Andrew Gwynne: As the Minister knows, I come from a local government background and am proud to have served 11 years on Tameside council, where we can really make a difference locally every day in a way that MPs can only dream about. The sad thing is that people do not recognise what local government does and how its functions directly affect their lives on a day to day basis.
	The Bill is a good one, and we have made it better. We have answered the now infamous Tameside question—the people of Dukinfield and Audenshaw will sleep tonight—and we have won the battle for thirds, too. The Bill is devolutionary in nature and the changes that we made in Committee and on Report show that Ministers listened, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their listening role.
	I hope that the changes we have made will improve the operation of our councils, bring about more accountability and better co-ordination with our partners through local area agreements and strategic partnerships, and improve the scrutiny functions. There will be a real role for councillors to hold to account the NHS, the partners, local trusts, such as Stockport Sports Trust, as well as council departments. The most important part of councillors' new role, and a point that we have skated over, is that they will hold to account their cabinet colleagues.
	I hope, too, that the changes will increase people's recognition of the hard work of all councillors, whether executive or front-line members, and of the work of local authorities more generally. As a consequence, I hope there will be increased participation at local elections.
	I am ever the optimist—I live in hope—and I wish the Bill a safe passage to the other place.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to be called to speak on Third Reading. I agree with many of the other speakers that we have passed a thoroughly enjoyable four months—indeed, four months today—since Second Reading. The Committee proceedings were stimulating and certainly fun; we cannot always say that of the some of the Bills that go through this place. I look forward to cashing in some of the champagne moments that have been only theoretical so far—Ministers and Opposition spokesmen will be held to account if those moments do not become reality within a reasonable period.
	My colleagues on the Labour Benches who have already spoken on Third Reading have rightly concentrated on the local government aspect of the Bill—it is after all a local government Bill and many of my colleagues are well versed and experienced in local government. But I want for a moment to think about what the Bill does from the point of view of the governed and the communities that we and our local government colleagues serve. Those communities have the potential to take great steps forward—in terms of participative democracy in particular—as a result of the Bill.
	In many parts of the Bill, there is an implicit recognition of the role of the voluntary sector and the community sector in representing communities. That is not the same role as councillors have; it is a complementary one. I do not want to get into an argument about Wiltshire, but perhaps the answer to the concerns of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) is the strengthening of local area agreements. Making sure that different service providers work together towards common aims and goals, and share the necessary practical and administrative facilities, has great potential. Services do not have to be delivered identically in every community. They have to recognise the needs of those communities at a local level. In years to come, we will look back at the partnerships that are inherent in the Bill and say that the Bill was good because of the changes that were made.
	Another reason the Bill enhances local democracy is that it extends public scrutiny. We have seen the scrutiny system in local government mature over recent years. It has become a force to reckon with and has shown itself capable of holding local authorities to account. The provision of social care is one of the roles of local authorities, but over recent years we have seen a blurring of the border between health and social care. It is therefore essential that we produce a vehicle that can extend the scrutiny over the grey border between health and social care. The way to do that is through the mature scrutiny functions of local authorities and the experience of patients. I am thinking of the sheer commitment that many patients have shown through their involvement with community health councils and forums. I am sure that, in a few years' time, we will see that in the local involvement networks as well. As I said in Committee, abolition is a dirty word, but actually it is just part of a process that will bring together health and social care with the support of the scrutiny that local authorities can give. But, essentially, it will be a voluntary organisation—more than likely—that will co-ordinate LINKs and make sure that patients are properly represented.
	We are also seeing greater powers and responsibilities for councillors. It is not just their scrutiny role that is enhanced; there is also their role as facilitators and champions of their community—people who work with their community organisations rather than against them, as some councillors do. I am talking about being part of the same process, and working through the community call for action and some of the other facilities in the Bill to make sure that people who draw attention to the issues that are important in different streets and communities get their voices heard. In a limited way, there are even powers to choose whether there are thirds elections or all-out elections. That has been a minor success, but a success none the less, showing that scrutiny in this place works too.
	The Bill is about making thing happen in communities. It is about trusting local people, involving local people and serving local people—not just through councillors and local government, but through the other organisations that hold our communities together and provide the glue and the fabric that make society work. In that sense, it is no exaggeration to say that we will look back on this Bill in a few years' time and say, "That was when it was recognised that communities, voluntary groups and others could come together with local authorities and councillors as partners, working with other public sector providers to make sure that there is a coherent, sensitive provision of local services that complement each other and make life in communities better."

David Taylor: I have been privileged today to welcome a party of constituents to the Palace of Westminster. Their mission has been to promote the case for an adult hospice in North-West Leicestershire. The first part of the daywas to discuss the topic with my hon. Friend theMember for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), chairmanof the all-party hospice and palliative care group. The second was to lobby the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). I am grateful to my colleagues for the time that they gave. The third and final part is for me to present this petition.
	The signatories include Dorothy Lacey MBE, Carol Smith, Kate Last, Loraine Liddell, Tony Hodkinson and Stewart Shepherd of the Hospice Hope support group, who are working extremely hard to advance the campaign and who were at the House today, as well as me as the local Member of Parliament.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of 3,121 residents of North West Leicestershire and surrounding areas
	Declares that...
	The hospice movement deserves the wide-spread admiration, endorsement and devoted support it receives for its work with people who face the end of their lives and for meeting the needs of their families and friends, ensuring that those in their care are accorded respect, privacy and dignity and are valued and responded to with empathy.
	Further declares that...
	Following the closure in 2002 of the Sue Ryder Hospice at Staunton Harold, the local area has waited too long for a successor facility to provide day, respite and terminal care and that patients in North West Leicestershire with a palliative illness are being denied choices because of the lack of access to their own hospice and associated support centre.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the NHS through the Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust and the East Midlands Strategic Health Authority respond and act to meet the growing and pressing needs of many patients and their loved ones for a hospice in our area...
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	 To lie upon the Table.

Angela Eagle: On the morning of Friday 11 May, just as I was about to attend a turf-cutting ceremony for a brand new primary care centre at the Victoria central hospital in Liscard—a £14-million public investment—I received phone calls from distressed workers at the Burton's Foods plant in Moreton. They had been gathered together in the canteen and told that the production of biscuits at the plant would cease, making 660 of them redundant. Following that bombshell, staff were not allowed to ask their managers questions, nor were their trade union representatives allowed on site to meet them. Instead, the employees were escorted off company premises by the additional security guards who had been hired specially for the day.
	Despite a history of considerable public sector investment and financial support for the plant, the company chose not to give any prior notice of its decision to the local authority, the trade unions or me. I had visited the plant on several occasions in the past few months and was acutely aware that the review was being conducted. I had received personal assurances that I would be kept in touch with progress, but I was not. In 2003, as the local MP, I had played a part in putting together a package that had involved £4 million of public money. In response, the work force had agreed a painful £12 million cost reduction plan. As part of it, they had endured a three-year pay freeze and changes to working practices designed to safeguard their future. The company's legal obligations under that package ran out in March this year.
	To say that there is shock and anger in the communities of Moreton and Leasowe as they contemplate Burton's actions is an understatement. I feel that I must express that shock and anger to the House on their behalf tonight. There is despair and worry about the future, as well as a sense that the company has taken the considerable sacrifice that local workers have made over the past few years and thrown it back in their faces. I must say that I can see that point of view.
	Five days after the shock of the announcement of11 May, I convened a meeting in Parliament. It was attended by the chief executive of Burton's Foods, Paul Kitchener, representatives of the Northwest Development Agency, Wirral metropolitan borough council chief executive Steve Maddox, and the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, Tony Woodley. I am grateful to all concerned for their swift response to my request and for the seriousness with which all parties approached that meeting. After a long and intense meeting, the company agreed to share its figures and plans with us in much greater detail. We will now work together to see whether any alternative approach can be taken that might enable us to preserve at least some manufacturing capacity on the Moreton site.
	Burton's Foods has been an important local employer on the Wirral for many years and we wish to do everything that we can to keep it that way. The initial meeting taking that work forward will be in Wallasey town hall tomorrow. The Burton's plant in Moreton is the largest private sector employer in my constituency, with more than 1,000 people on the payroll. Seasonal work can boost that number still further. The announcement ending the manufacture of biscuits on site is a terrible blow for local employment prospects. Generations of my constituents have worked at the plant. Often entire families and succeeding generations of the same families have had access to the employment opportunities that were there. Since the second world war, the biscuit factory has been one of the mainstays of economic activity in the area.Its threatened loss creates a very serious situation which, in my view, deserves urgent Government attention.
	I have asked for this Adjournment debate to make two requests of the Minister. First, I wish to secure my right hon. Friend's unequivocal support in the battle to save a manufacturing capacity at the Moreton plant, if that is at all possible. That is clearly my preferred outcome, despite the bleak prospects currently facing us. Secondly, if the company goes ahead with its plans unchanged, it will be vacating about half of a 29 hectare site currently designated for industrial use and crucial to any prospect of regenerating local employment opportunities. I wish to use this debate to emphasise to my right hon. Friend how important it will be to have Government support and engagement via the Northwest Development Agency to buy the site in order to develop new business and employment opportunities for local people in their own neighbourhood.
	The site hosts two other sizable local employers, Manor Bakeries and Typhoo Tea. Burton's has said that it is maintaining the chocolate refinery and packing work on site, which will retain 100 full-time jobs and 200 seasonal jobs. However, if biscuit manufacturing were to go, I would be concerned to ensure that the viability of the site is safeguarded as an industrial base for the area. The local authority has assured me that it would actively oppose any attempt at changing the land use, so there will be no quick or easy profit to be made from selling the land for housing development. I strongly support that approach. We cannot have new houses and new communities with no local job opportunities. However, in circumstances where Burton's does indeed shed these jobs, we would have to rely on Government grant to invest innew industrial units and create the infrastructure required to attract new employment opportunities to our town.
	Wirral has historically had a very low job density rate. Residents have traditionally travelled across the Mersey to Liverpool or down the peninsular to Chester for work. Prior to the Burton's announcement, the job density in Wirral was 62. That means that there were only 62 jobs per 100 people of working age available on the peninsular itself. To put that figure into perspective, the average job density for the country is 83. The loss of jobs at Burton's will make the already low figure of 62 worse still. It is therefore vital for our future economic prospects that Wirral is assisted in developing new investment opportunities to create local jobs thatmy constituents can get to even if they do not own a car.
	Can my right hon. Friend tell me what her Dept can do to help us in the current circumstances? Will she ensure that the Northwest Development Agency pays urgent and serious attention to the issue and develops flexible and active responses to enable us to fight for the 660 threatened jobs, as well as to plan for the redevelopment of at least a part of this massive site, with the focus on creating new local employment opportunities?
	Prior to the threatened loss of 660 local jobs, Wirral had worked hard with the private sector and achieved an employment rate of 71 per cent. Clearly, this will be badly impacted should the threatened job losses go ahead. The Government rightly have an aspiration to achieve an 80 per cent. employment rate throughout the country by 2012. The events of the past two weeks have made that target much harder to achieve on the Wirral.
	Whatever we may be able to salvage from an extremely difficult situation, it seems clear that there could be substantial job losses to be absorbed by the communities of Moreton and Leasowe, in the short term at least. I am due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform soon to discuss the help that his Department could bring to bear should the threatened job cuts materialise. I wish to make a case publicly for a significant package of Government assistance, including financial support for retraining and enhanced support for those who could find themselves searching for alternative employment. Will my right hon. Friend explain what her Department can do to help in those circumstances?
	Finally, my constituents who work in the Moreton factory have felt vulnerable ever since the business was involved in a succession of private equity buy-outs. The latest of those was completed only in January this year, when Duke Street Capital acquired the assets from Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst. As Burton's Foods was so recently acquired, it has to be assumed that the information that led to the closure decision was being shared with the new owners at the time of the sale. However, it was not being shared with the work force, who had delivered in good faith the £12 million cost reduction package, or with the public sector partners, who have done so much to support the business in the past. That cannot be an acceptable state of affairs, and I ask my right hon. Friend to think about what might be done to ensure that appropriate disclosure of such information is required of companies in such circumstances in the future.
	We will leave no stone unturned and no alternative unexplored in our attempt to save biscuit manufacturing at the Moreton site. If we are to stand a chance of success, we will need the Government's engagement and support. I hope that my right hon. Friend can promise me that in her reply tonight.

Margaret Hodge: May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on securing this debate so promptly? I completely understand the enormous worry and distress that has been caused to her constituents by the announcement, made some10 days ago, that Burton's wants to reduce production at its Moreton site. It is devastating to be told that you will not have a job in any circumstances, but given the particular challenges that my hon. Friend faces in her constituency, the announcement is especially difficult.
	I understand and recognise the need to ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents enjoy the same job opportunities as others elsewhere in the country. That will enable them to move from a dependency on benefits, which so many of her constituents have, to independence in work. My hon. Friend represents a community in which 75 per cent. of her constituents in the local authority area live in the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in the country under the super output area definition. She is right to point out that the job density—I have a figure of 63 jobs per 100 adults; she quoted a figure of 62 jobs per 100 adults—is among the lowest within local authority districts in the north-west region, which itself faces particular problems. She is also right to point out that many people who live in Wirral work outside the borough. I hope that she agrees that one of our tasks is to ensure access to jobs within the wider geographic area, which is an important ambition.
	At the end of the day, the company will have to take its own decision in its own interests. The Government cannot intervene in that decision-making process. With changing markets, particularly in that area, and increasing globalisation, companies such as Burton's are facing tough competitive pressures. However, we can do a number of things. We can manage the economy in a way that ensures that we provide the best conditions in which business can prosper and grow, and our record on that in the past 10 years has been second to none. We have provided consistent macro-economic stability and growth in every quarter in the past58 quarters.
	Manufacturing is often talked down. We hear a lot of stories about manufacturing jobs going, but manufacturing remains a key point of our economy, accounting for14 per cent. of GDP, 50 per cent. of exports, three quarters of the research and development carried out by the private sector and almost 3 million good-quality jobs. We work very hard both within the Department of Trade and Industry and elsewhere in government to ensure that manufacturing is not only surviving, but thriving.
	There are many success stories. In the automotive industry, we are now producing almost as many vehicles as we were at the height of the automotive sector inthe 1970s. The aerospace industry has a turnover of£29 billion and the pharmaceutical industry, which is important in my hon. Friend's region, has invested£3.2 billion in research and development and produces 18 per cent. of the world's top 100 prescription medicines.
	The Government are investing in my hon. Friend's area. She has the benefit of the investment in the Mersey waterfront regional park, which is a key project in the region. Wallasey forms of part of that plan to create an international waterfront regional park from approximately 135 km of Merseyside sub-regional coastline. The Government are also giving support to businesses in Wallasey. Let me give some examples. We are helping Insulation Product Services Ltd to relocate and invest in plant and machinery. We are helping Organica (UK) Ltd to expand its production facility. We have provided support for R L Plastics Lt. in its expansion. We gave Northern Case Supplies Ltd help towards the purchase of new machinery. We are already investing in my hon. Friend's region and constituency to try to help the manufacturing sector to flourish. Despite the positive national context and that investment locally, I completely understand the very real problems faced by the 660 workers at Burton's Foods when they heard that announcement 10 days ago.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend for the swift action that she took to convene the partners here within five days of the announcement. As she knows, tomorrow there is a meeting between Wirral borough council,the Northwest Regional Development Agency and Burton's Foods, and I hope that there will be a positive discussion. Certainly, we have put in our commitment to look at alternatives to these job losses. The regional development agency will look to lead on exploring the business opportunities, considering scenario planning and examining all the options with the company. It will also co-ordinate actions that emerge from any of tomorrow's discussions.
	If I am honest, I am relieved that, following representations that I received from my hon. Friend, we included the site of the Burton's Food factory in the amended assisted area status map. That means that it will be covered as regards investment and assistance that can be given by Government.